


LIBRARY | 
| 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.4 


PACIFIC THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 


) oO 
eAccession _849 94 = Class 


y 
Ἷ 

ἜΣ 

~| : 

a 

᾽ς 


dy 


ZRII RES ORIEN PRES PES RSE ERE REN PS 
γ᾽ SEE ESE a a 














Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2008 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


https :/larchive.org/details/grammarofidiomof0Owinerich 





GRAMMAR. 


THE IDIOM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 


PREPARED AS A SOLID BASIS FOR THE INTERPRETATION 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


BY 


DR. GEORGE BENEDICT WINER. 


SEVENTH EDITION, ENLARGED AND IMPROVED. 


BY 


DR. GOTTLIEB LUNEMANN, 


PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GOETTINGEN, 





REVISED AND AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION. 








WARREN F. DRAPER. 


LONDON: TRUBNER AND CO. LEIPSIC: F. C. W. VOGEL 
PHILADELPHIA: SMITH, ENGLISH, & CO. 


1883. 


Entereé according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, by 
WARREN F. DRAPER, 
{m the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 


ANDOVER: 
PRINTED BY WARREN F. DRAPER. 


PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION. 





Wuen this Grammar first made its appearance, in 1822, the 
object proposed was to oppose the unbridled license with which 
the diction of the New Testament was then, and had long been, 
handled in commentaries and exegetical lectures; and to apply, 
as far as practicable, the results of an enlightened philology, as 
deduced and taught by Hermann and his school, to the study of 
the language of the New Testament. It was high time that some 
voice should be raised against the inveterate empiricism of ex- 
positors, and that some effort should be made to emancipate the 
writers of the N. T. from the bondage of a perverted philology, 
which styled itself sacred and yet showed not the least respect 
towards the sacred authors and their well-considered phraseology. 

The fundamental error — the πρῶτον weddos — of the Biblical 
philology and exegesis to which we refer, consisted ultimately in 
this, that neither the Hebrew nor the language of the N. T. was 
regarded as a living idiom (Herm. Eurip. Med. p. 401.), designed 
to be used by men as the medium of intercourse., Had scholars 
deliberately inquired, whether those departures from the current 
laws of speech which were assumed to exist in the Bible in such 
prodigious multitudes, were compatible with the essential princi- 
ples of a language intended for the ordinary purposes of life, they 
would not so arbitrarily have held every kind of anomaly to be 
permissible ; and would not have delighted to attribute to the 
Apostles in almost every verse an enallage or a substitution of the 
wrong construction for the right. 

The older commentaries belonging to the period of the Refor- 
mation are comparatively free from such perversions ; but when 


.8δὅ,4δ904 τ“ 


Vi PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION. 


we read certain commentaries of the 18th and 19th centuries still 
current, we are constrained to conclude that the main character- 
istic of the language of the N. T. is a total want of precision and 
regularity. For these interpreters are continually showing how 
here a wrong tense is used, there a wrong case, here a comparative 
for a positive, there ὁ for τις, but instead of for, consequently for 
because, on the other side for on this side (what for so Isa. viii. 20). 
Such exegetical learning makes a reader quite impatient with the 
sacred writers for their ignorance of the ordinary principles of 
language. He cannot comprehend how such men in oral dis- 
course, where this lawlessness of speech must certainly have been 
still more conspicuous, could have made themselves understood 
even, much less how they could have won over to Christianity a 
great number of persons of education. 

But this system of explaining every difficulty by a pro or an 
idem quod had a serious as well as a ludicrous aspect. For does 
not Scripture become, as an eminent linguist long ago intimated, 
like a waxen nose, which every one can twist as he pleases, in 
proportion to his ignorance of the learned tongues? Would it 
have been impossible, or even difficult, for such a man as Storr, for 
example, had the task been assigned him, to have found in the 
words of the Apostles any favorite notion whatever? And does 
such a view of N. T. diction accord with the dignity of sacred 
writers?! Every one who now-a-days should insist on using in 
the ordinary intercourse of life such perversions of language as 
the following: I shall come to thee to-day for I came to thee to-day ; 
no prophet ever came out of Galilee for no prophet will ever come 
out of Galilee (Jno. vii. 52); I call you no longer servants for I 
did not call you mere servants (Jno. xv. 15); for Jesus himself tes- 
tified, that a prophet has no honor in his own country for although 
Jesus himself testified, etc. (Jno. iv. 44); I saw the forest that was 
magnificently covered with foliage for a forest that was, ete. 
(Jno. v. 17); send me the book, and Iwill read tt, for thou wilt 


1 Herm. ad Viger. p. 786: Diligenter caveant tirones, ne putent, viros spiritu sancto 
afflatos sprevisse sermonem mortalium, sed meminerint potius, illam interpretandi 
rationem, qua nonnulli theologorum utuntur, nihil esse nisi blasphemiam. 

2 To what extent expositors of the old school were devoid of all sense of expression 
may be seen (instar omnium) in Kiihndl’s reasoning, Mt. p. 120 sq. 


Se ee ee ΩΝ Ν 


PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION. Vii 


send me the book, etc.; to whoin it was revealed that for to whom 
this was revealed, yet so that, etc. (1 Pet. i. 121); Christ is dead 
werefore risen again for but risen again; he is not more learned 
tor he is not learned ; he rejoiced that he should see, etc., and he 
saw and rejoiced, for he would have rejoiced if he had seen, ete., 
he rejoiced even at what he already saw (Jno. viii. 56) ; he began to 
wash for he washed (Jno. xiii. 56), and the like,— would be re- 
garded as having lost his reason. Were all the instances of a quid 
pro quo which many expositors during the decennaries just past 
have put into the mouth of the Apostles to be collected, the list 
could not fail to be astounding. 

When, at the commencement of my career as a university 
tutor, I undertook to combat this absurd system of interpretation, 
I was aware that there were scholars far more competent for the 


task than myself; and, in fact, what 1 accomplished in the earlier 


editions of this book was but imperfect. My attempt, however, 
was cordially encouraged by distinguished men, and in particular 
by Vater and D. Schulz. Others pointed out, sometimes indeed 
in a spirit of bitterness, the imperfections of the work; and to 
these unsparing critics I have been greatly indebted, not only in 
this publication, but in all my exegetical labors. By discussions 
annexed to the second edition (1828) the grammatical contents 
of the work were enlarged, and the third edition came out greatly 
improved, both in copiousness and accuracy, by ἃ more extensive 
study of the writings of the Greek prose authors and of the Hel- 
lenistic Jews. From that time forward I have labored incessantly 
to improve the work ; and I have been animated by the aid which 
philological and exegetical publications suited to my purpose have 
furnished me in rich abundance. At the same time, the intelligent 
investigation of the N. T. diction has been daily gaining ground ; 
and the use of the Grammar by commentators has been growing 
more and more evident. The work began to attract the attention 
of professed philologists even. At the same time I have always 
been far from thinking the correct grammatical elucidation of the 
N. T. to be its only proper exposition ; and I have, in silence, 
allowed some to regard me even as an opponent of what is now 
called the theological interpretation. 


1 On this passage see my Erlanger Pfingstprogr. 1830. 4to. 


viii PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION. 


The present edition — the sixth— will show again on every 
page, that I have spared no effort to arrive at truth. Deeply, how- 
ever, do I regret, that in the midst of my labors 1 was overtaken 
by a nervous affection of the eyes, which has brought me to the 
verge of total blindness. This calamity has compelled me to 
employ the eyes and hands of others to complete this edition. I 
cannot omit this opportunity of expressing publicly my sincere 
thanks to all the young friends whose indefatigable assistance only 
has enabled me, in spite of my frequent forebodings, to accomplish 
my task. 

The change in the arrangement of the matter in Part III. will, 
I trust, be approved. In other respects, it has been my especial 
aim to treat every point with greater completeness, and in smaller 
space, than in previous editions; (the text of the Grammar now 
occupies eight sheets fewer than before). With this view I 
adopted all possible abbreviations in the Biblical and Greek 
citations.! It is hoped, however, that these, as well as those for 
the names of more recent authors,? will everywhere be intelligible. 
The citations have been verified anew throughout; and, so far as 
I know, not a single work that has appeared since 1844 has been 
left unused, or at least unnoticed. 

The text of the N. T. I have uniformly, that is except when 
there was a question of various readings, quoted in accordance 
with the second Leipsic edition of Dr. Tischendorf, which at 
present has probably the most extensive circulation. 

May this new revision— the last the work will ever receive 
from me — contribute to the diffusion of Biblical truth, so far as 
any such work can. 


1 The Greek writers are only quoted by the page when the division by chapters has 
not obtained currency: Plato, according to the edition by Stephan. ; Strabo and Athe- 
naeus, by Casaubon ; Demosthen. and Isocrat., by H. Wolf; Dionys. Hal., by Reiske ; 
Dio Cass., by Reimar. ; Dio Chrysost., by Morell. 

2 It may be remarked here, that instead of Kuinoel (the Latinized form of the name), 
Kiihnél, as the family wrote their name in German, is used everywhere, except in Latin 
citations. 


Lzrpsic, October, 1855. 


PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION. 





Winer’s foreboding that the sixth edition would be the last 
revision from his hand has unfortunately been realized. But even 
while sensible of his approaching death, the indefatigable man 
took incessant interest in his Grammar, and labored to the very 
end of his life to perfect it. Without altering the general distri- 
bution of matter as it appeared in the sixth edition, he constantly 
improved the book in details,—by additions of greater or less 
extent in more than three hundred and forty places, by erasures 
and reconstructions, by the multiplication of parallel passages 
from biblical and from profane literature, by a more precise defini- 
tion of thoughts and expressions, by the correction of trivial over- 
sights and mistakes, etc. etc. Thus he has not left us without 
bequeathing to us in this book a legacy richer than ever. 

When the publisher confided to me the preparation of the 
new edition which had become necessary, I could not hesitate 
a moment what course to adopt. It was clear to me, in the first 
place, that the book must retain absolutely and throughout the 
character of a work by Winer. This was demanded, on the one 
hand, by reverence towards the departed author; whom no one 
has hitherto surpassed— whom hardly any one among those now 
living will surpass —in a department which he cultivated with 
especial fondness for more than a generation. It appeared also, 
on the other hand, to be a sacred duty towards the theological 
public, to whom Winer’s work, on account of its scholarly exact- 
ness and copious erudition, justly became long ago a precious 
possession and a universally acknowledged authority. I con- 


sidered myself, therefore, as bound to abstain from every radical 
2 ix 


x ᾿ς PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION. 


alteration of the text, either as respects the general arrangement 
or as respects the development of details. My task, rather, I 
perceived to be merely this: while preserving in its integrity the 
character of Winer’s book, to increase as far as possible, in 
the spirit and intent of Winer, its usefulness for students of the 
present day. Ihave taken especial pains to work into the text 
the numerous manuscript notes from Winer’s hand. In doing 
this, Winer’s own words have been retained as far as it was any 
way feasible; and changes, when necessary, have always been 
restricted so closely, that they affect merely what is unessential, 
never the matter itself. Further, I have made it a point, not 
merely to correct silently the obvious oversights and mistakes 
I met with—and they proved to be more numerous than I 
expected —and to give to the cross-references a definiteness 
in which they were often deficient, but also to consult, as far 
as pertinent, the theological and philological works which have 
appeared since Winer’s death, and to use in this new edition what 
they contained worthy of attention. Whenever, too, a question 
of textual criticism is involved, regard has been paid to the read- 
ings of the Codex Sinaiticus. Yet great self-restraint has been 
imposed throughout, in order not to augment excessively a work 
already of considerable bulk. 

Winer’s additions and alterations have been directly incorpo- 
rated with the text without being indicated by a particular sign. 
They will be plain to every one who will take the pains to com- 
pare the seventh edition with the sixth. On the other. hand, the 
additions which I have made have been in all cases marked by 
square brackets. The square brackets already used by Winer 
here and there, have consequently been made to give place to 
other signs; such as round brackets, dashes, etc. In conclusion 
it may be remarked that very great care has been taken to secure 
typographical accuracy. 

And now may the book, in this its seventh edition, subserve its 
purpose to afford the interpretation of the New Testament a stable 
foundation. . 


DR. LUNEMANN. 


Gorrinern, August 19, 1866. 


Se ΨΥ ee ee Se - 


AMERICAN EDITOR’S PREFACE. 





Wrner’s Grammar is now for the fourth time rendered accessi- 
ble to English readers. A translation of the first edition was 
made by the late Professors Stuart and Robinson, and published 
at Andover in 1825. The fourth edition of the original, rendered 
into English by Professors Agnew and Ebbeke, appeared in 1839. 
Twenty years later Professor Masson’s translation of the sixth 
German edition was published at Edinburgh (and Philadelphia). 
The present work was originally announced (in April 1866) as a 


revision of Professor Masson’s. The labor of revision was drawing 


towards completion, and nearly three hundred pages of the book 
had been stereotyped, when appeared the seventh German edition, 
under the supervision of Dr. Liinemann. Some unavoidable 
delay ensued before the revision and the printing were begun 
anew in conformity with this new edition. These facts explain 
why the publication of the present volume follows the original 
announcement so tardily. 

The book still remains, substantially, a revision of Professor 
Masson’s translation. The changes introduced have been such as 
could be made upon the printed sheets of that work. This circum- 
stance has frequently affected their form and sometimes their num- 
ber. But although Professor Masson’s version has been retained 
as the basis of this, it is believed that hardly a paragraph of his 
work remains altogether unaltered ; and sometimes the alterations 
amount in effect to a new translation, —a translation which for 


entire pages has but a few phrases in common with its predecessor. 


In making the changes described it has been the editor’s aim 
to render the version a faithful reproduction of the original. A 


faithful translation, he believes, should not only be free from 
xi 


xii AMERICAN EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


intentional addition,! omission, or alteration, but in a work of 
this kind should adhere as closely to the author’s expression as 
English idiom will permit. Accordingly, should the renderings 
seem, here and theré, to have lost a. little in ease, a compensation 
will be found, it is hoped, in their increased accuracy. 

It has not been judged necessary to annotate any interpretation 
having a doctrinal bearing, even though such interpretation be 
debatable on grammatical grounds, or to qualify an expression or 
two respecting the sacred writers which may strike many English 
readers as unwarrantably free; for the book is likely to be used 
either by students with mature understandings in exercise, or by 
pupils under the guidance of competent teachers. The reasons 
which have led the editor to disregard the request that he would 
abridge and otherwise alter the original work will be suggested 
by Professor Linemann’s remarks upon this point. 

The notation of the sections, etc., has been carefully retained 
throughout. When it could be done conveniently, the cross-refer- 
ences have been rendered more definite by subjoining the number 
of the page. To aid those who may use this book in connection 
with Commentaries which refer to the Grammar by pages, the 
paging of the sixth and seventh German editions, as well as of 
Professor Masson’s translation, has been noted on the outer margin 
of the leaves. The indexes have been revised, and that of Greek 
words has been considerably enlarged. Further, the Index of | 
Passages in the New Testament has been made complete, and the 
references themselves have been carefully verified ; this laborious 
work has been performed by Mr. G. W. Warren, formerly a student 
in this Seminary, at present Professor of Biblical Interpretation 
in the Baptist Theological Seminary at Chicago, Illinois. This 
Index, it is believed, will be highly valued by students. A glance 
at it will show with how little exaggeration the book may be called 
ἃ grammatical commentary on the more difficult texts of the New 
Testament. Other references the editor has been content simply 
to transfer to the pages of the translation. This will account for 
their frequent want of uniformity. 

Pains have been taken to give the work that typographical 


1 In a single passage it seemed necessary to append a note; see page 598. 


AMERICAN EDITOR’S PREFACE. xiii 


accuracy which is a leading requisite in a satisfactory manual. 
On this point, however, the editor would not speak too confi- 
dently ; for even in the seventh German edition, which is as 
superior to the sixth in accuracy of typography as it is in elegance, 
errata have been discovered by the score. It is hoped that the 
mistakes which have slipped in, will not exceed in number those 
detected, and silently rectified, in the German original. 

In conclusion, the editor would express the desire that the 
book in its present form may both facilitate and increase that 
patient, reverent study of the letter of the Inspired Word, which 
is indispensable to the fullest reception of it as spirit and life. 


J. HENRY THAYER. 


THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, ANDOVER, Masa 
October, 1868. 





NOTE. 


In this new impression the Biblical references, both in the body of the 
work and as collected in the N. T. Index, have been verified again. A few 
of the former, which appear to be wrong as they stand but which the editor 
had not the means of correcting, have been marked with [?]. The altera- 
tions in the N. T. Index are so numerous, that it has been found convenient 
occasionally to sink an added reference into a foot-note; and, in inserting 
other references to the pages, to disregard sometimes the strict numerical 
order. In some instances, also, the gap left by the removal of erroneous 
references has not been closed up. The re-examination of this index proves 
it to be not quite “complete”; but there are no omissions, it is believed, 
which a student will regret. 

J. H. T. 


ANDOVER, September, 1873. 


vad} TL 
ai eR η να, 
4 meh Gai 


SBT Aas 


Ν᾿ 
0 


‘ ΕἾ 
aoe . 


. at 








CON TEN TS, 





INTRODUCTION. | 
PAGE 


On the Scope, Treatment, and History of N. T. Grammar, §§ 1-4, 1 


PART FIRST. 


ON THE CHARACTER OF THE N.T. DICTION ESPECIALLY 
IN ITS GRAMMATICAL ASPECTS. 


§ 1. Various Opinions concerning the Character of the N.T. Diction, . 12 


§ 2. Basis of the N. T. Diction, : ς 3 Re ‘ : 20 
§ 8. Hebrew-Aramaic Tinge of the N.T. Diction, . . . - 27 
§ 4. Grammatical Character of the Ν. Τὶ Diction, . . ~. = . 35 


PART SECOND. 


THE GRAMMATICAL FORMS AS RESPECTS THEIR FORMA- 
TION (INFLECTION). 


§ 5. Orthography and Orthographic Principles, . . . : 40 
§ 6. Accentuation, . ξ - - 49 
§ 7. Punctuation, 55 
§ 8. Rare Forms of the First and Second Declensions, -. ϊ : 266 
8 9. Rare Forms of the Third Declension, .. Στ τς 4 Ξ - 64 
§ 10, Foreign Words and Words which are Indeclinable, Pape 
§ 11. Inflection and Comparison of Adjectives. - . .  . . 68 


§ 12. Augment and Reduplication of Regular Verbs, ἢ : . Sb eee 5 
§ 13. Rare Forms in the Tenses and Persons of Regular Verbs, : 8 
§ 14. Rare Inflections of Verbs in MI and of Irregular Verbs, . . - 78 
ΡΣ δον VOTES sg fe wt cee tee ἣν ; : = 
ene Omani OF WORE, ie lg in) eh tas) ce th ee le 500} 


A. 


ξ 17, 
ξ 18. 
ξ 19. 
§ 20. 


§ 21. 
§ 22. 
ς 23. 
8. 24, 
§ 25. 
§ 26. 


§ 27. 
§ 28. 
§ 29. 
§ 80. 
§ 81. 
§ 82. 
§ 33. 


§ 84. 
§ 35. 
§ 36. 
8 87. 


8 38. 
§ 39. 
§ 40. 


CONTENTS. 


PART THIRD. 


SYNTAX. 
IMPORT AND USE OF THE SEVERAL PARTS OF SPEECH. 
CHAPTER I. THE ARTICLE. 
The Article as a Pronoun, Ἂ 2 F ὦ ° A 5 (A 
Articulus Praepositivus, a. before Nouns, ii a os, ade γτὴΣ 


Omission of the Article before Nouns, . . ° rete 
Articulus Praepositivus, Ὁ. with Attributives,. . .« «+. «+ 


CHAPTER Il. PRONOUNS. 
The Pronouns in general, er itl ἐπε τ winrar’ eee Ge 
Personal and Possessive Pronouns, . ᾿ ὡς . . ° ᾿ 
The Demonstrative Pronoun, . ᾿ “ ὃ Fs é ° ‘ 
The Relative Pronoun, . ‘ : ὃ ‘ é é : “ 
The Interrogative Pronoun and the Indefinite Pronoun ΤΙΣ, . 


Hebraisms in connection with certain Pronouns, . ὃ ὸ J 


CHAPTER ΠῚ. THE NOUN. 
Number and Gender of Nouns, APT AMEN ped?» yee REET Ne - 
The Cases in general, . * ‘ 2 δ . ° . 


Nominative and Vocative, . o aban τὸ Ἐν ee hte ΑΓ ΑΝ 
Genitive, é é δ é ° ὃ ° . Ἔ ἐ ἤ 
Dative, . " ~ ὲ “ ὃ ° ena ° : : 
Accusative, . , ‘ ° ὲ . . . ° 5 


Connection of a Verb (neuter) with its dependent Noun by means 
of Prepositions, ἀν, ΡΜ ΡΝ eae 
Adjectives, ς΄. τἀν mist tha diye adela Viste aed 
Comparative, . . . eer etl hefty ἃ; oy list: homed a aaa 
Superlative, . . . eof eee lbs ἐκ eh αὐ Peers 


Numerals, . . . Ὁ . . . + . . . 


CHAPTER IV. THE VERB. 
Active and Middle Voices, . ᾿ - Peer τ Λα ἡ ἂν 
The Passive, . . e . . Φ . .Φ ᾿ . . .Φ 


The Tenses, . . ae . “x bie φ e e e e 


PAGE 


104 
105 
119 
131 


140 
143 
157 
163 
168 
171 


174 
179 
181 
184 
208 
221 


232 
234 
239 
246 
248 


251 
260 
264 


CONTENTS. 


§ 41. The Indicative, Subjunctive, and Optative Moods,. - ° . 
8 42. The Conjunction ἊΝ with the three Moods, . .« 2 «© -« 
Sennen ee Oat ndut ΡΥ ἐγ πιοῦν οἷς τον eae Ae 
§ 44. The Infinitive, ἀρ ΟΣ ριον lat am en Ok iki a phe 
ee in Pasta ἀν πε νον bq. oes 


CHAPTER V. THE PARTICLES. 

§ 46. The Particles in general, . . .« ς « © © «© -« 
§ 47. The Prepositions in general, and such as govern the Genitive in 

WE CUIMIN 6. Oy Rae τς Gta πιὸ ὡς ρος ey, a 
ἢ @8.. Prepositions with tha Dative,  . . +» « « «. 
§ 49. Prepositions with the Accusative, . . . « « ὁ ὁ 
§ 50. Interchange, Accumulation, and Repetition of Prepositions, . . 
ὃ 51. Use of Prepositions in Circumlocutions, Ὁ . .« + ὁ « 
§ 52. Construction of Verbs compounded with Prepositions, . . ὁ 
Se ee Os Wee ey at eee? eee Va ἰδ τὸ μὸν πος 
ar ra eee ΠΑ δο μλδευν τα το 
§ 55. Negative Particles, . 5 ὼ P ΤΡ . . δ ‘ 
§ 56. Construction of Negative Particles,. - +. +6 «+ « 
§ 57. Interrogative Particles, . é . . ἃ - ‘ P ° 


B. STRUCTURE OF PROPOSITIONS, AND THEIR COMBINA- 
TION INTO PERIODS. 


§ 58. The Proposition and its Component Parts in general, . . . 

§ 59. Extension of a Simple Sentence in its Subject and Predicate: 
ἌΡ Ν EME, es ig se ee ἢ φιΠ- ς 

§ 60. Connection of Sentences: Periods, . : : ‘ : ᾧ ᾿ 

§ 61. Position of Words and Clauses, especially when Irregular (Hy- 
perbaton), . ᾿ Τὰς τὰ τ TS 

§ 62. Interrupted Structure of Sentences; Parentheses, . 

§ 63. Broken and Heterogeneous Structure of Sentences; Anacoluthon, 
Oratio variata, . : : ; ; ᾧ : 

§ 64. Defective Structure of Sentences; Ellipsis, Aposiopesis, . 

§ 65. Redundant Structure of Sentences; Pleonasm (Superfluity), 
eae th I pate Te a ον 


xvii 


PAGE 


281 
302 
310 
317 
340 


356 


358 
384 
396 
409 
423 
425 
433 
462 
473 
500 
508 


512 


523 
537 


546 
561 


566 
580 


601 


svi CONTENTS. 


§ 66. Condensed and Expanded Structure of Sentences (Breviloquence, 


Constructio Praegnans, Attraction, ete.), . Ἀ ᾿ ᾿ 


§ 67. Abnormal Relation of Individual Words in a Sentence (Hypallage), . 


§ 68. Regard to Sound in the Structure of Sentences; Paronomasia and 


Play upon Words (Annominatio), Parallelism, Verse,. . 





INDEX. 


I. Index of Principal Subjects, . . «. « SOIT he 
II. Index of Greek Words and Forms, . > ° of 3 
IIL Index of Passages in the N.T. explained or cited, . . . 


PAGE 
619 


631 


636 


643 
652 
668 


INTRODUCTION. 





ON THE SCOPE, TREATMENT, AND HISTORY OF N. T. GRAMMAR. 


§ 1. Tue language of the N. T., like every other, presents two 
aspects for scientific consideration, inasmuch as the words which 
we find in the N. T. following one another in connected discourse 
may be considered either by themselves, in reference to their origin 
and their meaning (the material element); or as respects their 
legitimate employment in the structure of clauses and periods 
(the formal element). The former is the business of Lexico- 
graphy; the latter belongs to Grammar, which must be carefully 
distinguished from N. T. Stylistics (Rhetoric). 


On distinguishing Lexicography from Grammar, see Pott in the Kieler 
Allgem. Monatsschr. 1851. Juli. The Lexicography of the N.T., of 
which Synonymy forms a very important part, though its importance was 
not duly recognized till of late, has always been cultivated in a merely 
practical manner. A theory of it, however, may be laid down; which 
might be styled Leaicology,—a term that has recently come into use. 
That this theory has not as yet been fully developed and perfected is the 
less surprising, since even the classic tongues remain destitute of a Lex- 
icology; and in the department of Exegetical Theology a theory of Biblical 
Criticism (higher and lower) is still a desideratum. This deficiency, 
however, has had a decidedly unfavorable effect on practical lexicography, 
as might be easily shown by a close examination of the lexicographical 
works on the N.T. which have hitherto appeared, even the most recent 
not excepted.’ 

N. T. Stylistics or Rhetoric (the latter appellation has already been em- 
ployed by Glassius and by Bauer, author of Rhetorica Paulina), should 
exhibit the characteristics of N.T. style in its freedom and individuality, 


1 For some remarks on the theory of lexicography, see Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik, 
5. 49. 84. A commencement towards a comparative lexicography has been made by 
Zeller, in his theolog. Jahrb. ΤΙ. 448 ff. 

1 


~84594 


14 


Tth ed. 


15 


2 INTRODUCTION. 


restricted only by the character and aim of the composition ; and this it 
should do both generally, and in reference to the peculiarities of the genera 
dicendi and of the respective writers (cf. Hand, Lehrb. ἃ. lat. Styls. p. © 
25 sq.). In this department much remains to be done, (particularly as 
respects the theory of rhetorical figures, erroneous views respecting which 
have at all times caused much mischief in the interpretation of the N. T.). 
The preparatory labors of Bauer and Dan. Schulze,’ however, are of service ; 
and Wilke has made a compilation (N. T. Rhetorik, Dresd. 1843. 8vo.) 


_worthy of attention. Schleiermacher had already given excellent hints 


in his Hermeneutik. As respects the discourses of Jesus and the apostolic 
epistles, it would be best to follow the example of the ancient rhetoricians, 
and treat in Biblical Rhetoric of the style of reasoning. This would 
prevent the excessive subdivision of N.T. Exegetics, and the separation 
of kindred subjects, which, when treated in connection, afford mutual light. 
Cf., besides, Gersdorf, Beitriige zur Sprachcharakterist. 4. N.T. 1 Bd. 
S. 7; Keil, Lehrb. der Hermeneutik, S. 28; C. J. Kellman, Diss. de usu 
Rhetorices hermeneutico. Gryph. 1766. 4to. 

It may be incidentally remarked, that in their exposition of Exegetical 
Theology our Encyclopaedias still leave much to be desired. And in 
practice, too, N. Τὶ Hermeneutics is not properly distinguished from N. T. 
Philology,’ as we may call that entire department of Exegetical Theology 
which has just been sketched. 


§ 2. A grammatical exposition of the idiom of the N. T., in so 
far as it is a variety of the Greek language, would strictly consid- 
ered involve only a systematic comparison of that idiom with the 
grammatical structure of the later Greek literary language ; for 
with this last the idiom of the N.T. is closely connected, both 
chronologically and generically. As, however, this later Greek 
itself has not yet been delineated in its peculiarities as a whole, 
and as the idiom of the N. T. also exhibits throughout the influence 
of a foreign tongue (the Hebrew-Aramaic) upon the Greek, N. T. 
Grammar must be so far extended as to comprise a scientific 


1 K. Ind. Bauer, Rhetorica Paullina. Halle, 1782. 3 pts. in 2 Vol. 8vo.; also Philologia 
Thucydideo-Paullina. Halle, 1773. 8vo. (To these may be added: H. G. Tezschirner, 
observationes Pauli Ap. epistolar. scriptoris ingenium concernentes. Viteb. 1800. 
3 Partes. 4to.) J. Dan. Schulze, der schriftstellerische Werth und Charakter des 
Johannes. Weissenf. 1803. 8vo.; also, der schriftsteller. Werth und Char. des Petrus, 
Judas und Jacobus. eb. 1802. 8vo. ; also, tiber den schriftst. Char. und Werth des 
Evang. Markus, in Keil and Tezschirner’s Analekt, 2 Bds. 2 St. S. 104-151. 3 St. S. 
69-132. 3 Bds. 1 St. S. 88-127. 

21 should prefer this old and intelligible appellation, ‘‘ Philologia sacra N. T.”’ (ef. 
J. Ch. Beck, conspect. system. philol. sacrae. Bas. 1760. 12 Section. 4to.) to that which 
Schleiermacher, following classic usage, proposes, ‘‘ Grammar”; see Liicke, on his Her- 
meneutik, 5. 10. © 





INTRODUCTION. 3 


exposition of the mode in which the Jewish authors of the N. T. 
wrote the Greek of their time. 


If it were proposed e.g. to write a grammar of the Egyptian or Alexan- 
drian variety of the Greek (as this variety had been moulded there in the 
mouths of Greek-speaking residents from various parts of the world), it 
would be enough to collect all its distinctive peculiarities, that is to say, 
all that make it a separate dialect; not indeed simply stringing them 
together in a fragmentary way, but arranging them systematically under 
the several divisions of grammar, and pointing out how and to what extent 
they respectively modified the general laws of the Greek language (by 
abandoning niceties, misusing analogies, etc.). The idiom of the N. Τ᾿, 
as it is a variety of the later Greek, should it require a grammar of its 
own, could only be exhibited as a species of a species; and thus a grammar 
of the N. T. would presuppose a grammar of the later Greek. But N.T. 
Grammar cannot easily be so restricted even in thought, still less can the 
idea be carried out to advantage. For, on the one hand, the Grammar 
of later Greek, especially in its oral popular form, has not yet been scien- 
tifically investigated ;' consequently, the groundwork for N. T. Grammar 
exists in thought rather than in fact. On the other hand, the idiom 
of the N.T. displays also the influence of a non-cognate language, the 
Hebrew-Aramaic, upon the Greek. N.T. Grammar, therefore, must 
extend its limits in two directions: Presuming the reader to be acquainted 
with the Grammar of classic Greek; it must point out in the manner 
already described the peculiarities of the later Greek, as exhibited in the 
N. T.; and likewise show, in the same scientific way, how and to what 
extent the Greek was modified by Hebrew-Aramaic influence. It would 
be wrong, however, to attempt to keep the two quite separate,? for the 
mingling of the (later) Greek with the national (or Jewish) element in 
the mind of the writers of the N.T., produced a single composite syntax, 
which must be recognized and exhibited in its essential unity. 


1 Valuable information, though rather lexical than grammatical, will be found in 
Lobeck’s notes on Phrynichi Eclog. Lips. 1820. 8vo. Previously Zrmisch (on Herodian) 
and Fischer (de vitiis Lexicor. N. T.) had collected much useful matter. Copious hints 
relative to the graecitas fatiscens have been more recently presented in the improved 
texts of the Byzantine writers, and the indices (of very unequal merit) appended to 
most of them in the Bonn edition; as well as in Boissonade’s notes in the anecdot. 
graec. (Paris, 1829 ff. V. 8.), and in his editions of Marinus, Philostratus, Nicetas 
Eugen., Babrius, etc. ; and, lastly, in Mullach’s ed. of Hierocles (Berl. 1853. 8vo.), 
{ecf. also his Grammatik der griech. Vulgarsprache in histor. Entwickelung. Berl. 1856. 
8vo.]. To the later Greek element appropriate reference is made likewise in Lobeck’s 
Paralipomena grammaticae Gr. Lips. 1837. 2 pts. 8vo., in his Pathologiae sermonis Gr. 
proleg. Lips. 1843. 8vo., and pathol. Graeci serm. elementa, Konigsb. 1853. I. 8vo., 
and also in ῥηματικόν s. verbor. Gr. et nominum verball. technologia, ib. 1846. 8vo. 

2 For judicious remarks on the lexical treatment of Hebraisms, see Schleiermacher’s 
Hermeneutik, 5. 65. — 


τὰ ed, 


Gth αἱ, 


4 INTRODUCTION, 


This mode of treating N. T. Grammar will undergo a partial change 
16 whenever the grammar of the later Greek language shall have received 
an independent exposition; for then it will not be necessary to prove the 
peculiarities of this later language by examples, —a task from which the 
N.T. grammarian cannot for the time be released. But one portion of 
the present contents of a grammar will gradually disappear, viz. the 
4 polemic, which opposes inveterate and deeply rooted prejudices, or errors 
Τὴ οἱ. which have again made their appearance. As yet, however, this negative 
vindication of the true character of the diction of the N. T. still continues 
indispensable ; for, well-known expositors even of very recent date (Kiihndl, 
Flatt, Klausen in his Evangeliencomm.) have shown us again how deeply 
rooted is that old grammatical empiricism which deems it an abomination 
ultra Fischerum (or even Storrium) sapere. 
Special grammars of separate portions of the N. T., as of the writings 
of John, of Paul, are clearly out of the question. The distinctive qualities 
4 that mark the diction of these writers in particular, consist almost entirely 
Νὰ οἷ. in the use of certain favorite expressions, or relate to the department of 
Rhetoric, as may be seen from the observations of Blackwall in his Crit. 
Sacr. N. T. II. 2. 8. p. 322sqq. ed. Lips. To this also peculiarities in 
the collocation of words are mostly to be assigned. Grammar is but 
seldom affected by these peculiarities of individuals. Accordingly Schulze 
and Schulz! have, on the whole, formed a more correct estimate of such 
peculiarities of diction than Gersdorf, whose well-known work —no great 
contribution of sure results even to verbal criticism— must have almost 
proved its own refutation, if it had had to be continued on the principles 
hitherto laid down. 


§ 8. Although investigation into the language of the N. T. is 
the basis of all sound interpretation, yet N.T. Grammar has been 
till a recent period almost entirely excluded by Biblical philologists 
from the range of their inquiries. While the lexical element of 
the N. T. language has been the subject of repeated investigation, 
the grammatical has been treated at the most only so far as it 
stood connected with the discussion of the Hebraisms of the N.T.? 


1 His remarks on the character of the N. T. diction are contained in his dissertation 
on the Parable of the Steward (Bresl. 1821. 8yo.) and that on the Lord’s Supper 
(Leipzig, 1824; 2d improved edit. 1831. 8vo.), and also in several articles in the 
Wachlersch. theol. Annalen. In both dissertations, which are of an exegetical char- 
acter, his observations, mostly acute, seem out of place, as they throw very little light 
on exegesis. Textual criticism, however, might have turned his views to good account, 
if the distinguished writer had only been pleased to give them to us in full. Cf. also 
Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik, 5. 129. 

2 An honorable exception among earlier expositors is the nearly forgotton G. ἢ", 
Heupel, who in his copious and almost purely philological Commentary on the Gospel 
of Mark (Strassburg, 1716. 8vo.) makes many excellent grammatical observations. 


eh ΟΡ 


ee ee ee! ee 


INTRODUCTION. 5 


Only Casp. Wyss (1650) and G. Pasor (1655) conceived more 
completely the idea of a N.T. grammar; but their efforts were 
unavailing to accomplish its recognition as a special department 
of exegetical discipline. During a period of one hundred and 
sixty years after them, Haab was the first to publish a special 
treatise on the Grammar of the N. T.; but his rather uncritical 
work, besides being restricted to the Hebraisms, was adapted to 
retard the science, rather than to promote it. 


The first author who in some degree collected and explained the pecu- 
liarities of the N. T. diction, was the celebrated Sal. Glass (1656) in his 
Philologia Sacra, the third book of which is entitled Grammatica Sacra, 
and the fourth Grammaticae Sacrae Appendix.’ But as he everywhere 
makes the Hebrew his point of departure, and touches upon the language 
of the N. T. only so far as it coincides with that, his treatise, to say nothing 
of its deficiencies, can be mentioned in a history of N. T. Grammar only 
as.a weak performance. It serves to remind us, however, of the two 
writers mentioned above, whose very names, as well as their productions, 
which belong here, had fallen into almost total oblivion. The one, Casp. 
Wyss, Prof. of Greek in the Gymnasium of Zurich (1659), published 
Dialectologia Sacra, in qua quicquid per universum Ν. F. contextum in 
apostolica et voce et phrasi a communi Graecor. lingua eoque grammatica 
analogia discrepat, methodo congrua disponitur, accurate definitur et om- 
nium sacri contextus exemplorum inductione illustratur. Tigur. 1650. 
pp- 324 (besides the appendix), small 8vo. In this treatise the grammatical 
peculiarities of N. T. diction are arranged under the following heads: 
Dialectus Attica, Ionica, Dorica, Aeolica, Boeotica, Poetica, Ἑ βραΐζουσα. 
This arrangement is awkward in the extreme, since kindred topics are 
separated and frequently are discussed in four different places. The 
writer’s acquaintance with the Greek dialects, also, was clearly not beyond 
the ordinary scholarship of his time, as the very mention of a special 
dialectus poetica shows,and an examination of what he calls Attic renders 
still more manifest. Still, as a collection of examples, which in several 
sections is absolutely complete, the volume has value; and as respects the 
grammatical Hebraisms of the N.T. the author’s moderation might well 
have been imitated by his contemporaries. 

George Pasor, Prof. of Greek at Franeker ({1637), known by his small 
Lexicon of the N. T.,— which has been several times republished, finally 
by J. Ε΄, Fischer, —left among his papers a grammar of the N. T., which 
his son, Matthias Pasor, Prof. of Theology at Gréningen ({1658), pub- 


The Greek erudition of J. F'. Hombergk, in his Parerga Sacra. Amstel. 1719. 4to., and 
of H. Heisen, in his Novae Hypotheses Interpretandae felicius Ep. Jacobi. Brem. 1739. 
4to., is lexical rather than grammatical. 

4 In Dathe’s edition this Grammatica Sacra forms, as is well known, the first book. 


1 


τὰ ed. 


Oth ed, 


18 


6 


6 INTRODUCTION. 


lished, with additions and improvements of his own, under the following 
title: G. Pasoris Grammatica Graeca Sacra N. T. in tres libros distributa. 
Groning. 1655. pp. 787. 8vo. This work is now a literary rarity,’ though 


ithed. it is far more fitted than the Lexicon-to transmit the author’s name to 


bth ed. 


posterity. It is divided, as the title indicates, into three books. The first 
contains the Inflections; the second, the Syntax (244-530); the third, 
seven appendices: de nominibus N. Τ᾿, de verbis N. T., de verbis anomalis, 
de dialectis N.T., de accentibus, de praxi grammaticae, de numeris 8. 
arithmetica graeca. The second book and the Appendix de dialectis N.'T? 
are the most valuable portions of the work. For in the first book, and in 
most of the appendices which form the third, he treats of the ordinary 
subjects of a general Greek grammar, superfluously inserting e.g. full 
paradigms of the Greek nouns and verbs. The syntax is elaborated with 
great accuracy and copiousness. The writer points out what is Hebraistic, 
but seldom adduces parallels from native Greek authors. This useful 
volume, however, is without a full index. 

During the interval from Pasor to Haab, the Grammar of the N.T. 
was treated but incidentally in treatises on the style of the N. T., e.g. by 
Leusden (de Dialectis N. T.) and Olearius (de Stylo N. T., pp. 257-271). 
But these authors confined themselves almost exclusively to Hebraisms, 
and by representing as Hebraistic much pure Greek phraseology, they 
involved in confusion again the whole inquiry concerning the Grammar 
of the N.T. Georgi was the first to vindicate the Greek character of 
numerous constructions usually regarded as Hebraistic, although even he 
did not escape one-sidedness. His writings attracted but little attention ; 
while the works of Vorst and Leusden now obtained through the efforts 
of Fischer new currency, and Storr’s well-known book ® was allowed for 
many years to exert its pernicious influence on the interpretation of the 
N. T. without restraint. 

From the:school of Storr appeared Ph. H. Haab (rector of Schweigern, 
in the kingdom of Wiirtemberg, $1833) with his Hebrew-Greek Grammar 
of the N.T., prefaced by Εἰ. G. v. Siiskind. Tiibing. 1815. 8vo. Over- 
looking the pure Greek element in the N.T. diction, he directed his 


1 Even Foppen (Bibliotheca Belgica, Tom. I. p. 342), who gives a list of Pasor’s 
other writings, does not mention this work. Salthen, Cat. Biblioth. Lib. Rar. (Regiom. 
1751. 8vo.) p. 470, bears witness to its extreme rarity, and D. Gerdesius, in his Florileg. 
Hist. Crit. Libr. Rar. (Groéning. 1763. 8vo.) p. 272. 

2 Pasor had already himself added this appendix, under the title Idea (syllabus 
brevis) Graecar. N. T. Dialectorum, to the first edition of his Syllabus Graeco-Lat. 
omnium N. T. vocum. Amstel. 1632.12mo. At the end he promises the above full 
Grammatica N. T. 

8 Observatt. ad analog. et syntaxin Hebr. Stuttg. 1779. 8vo. Some acute gram- 
matical observations, especially on enallage temporum, particularum, and the like, are 
to be found in J. G. Straube, diss. de emphasi graecae linguae N. T. in v. d. Honert, 


p. 70 sqq- 





ee ee ϑοκοα Δ «πὴ: 
᾿ 


hoor ass. =, eve = + 


i ne 


a a ee ΑΘ ae 


INTRODUCTION. 7 


attention merely to grammatical Hebraisms, and in the arrangement of 
the whole he followed the works of Storr and Weckherlin (Hebr. Gram. 
2 Pts.). If the reviewer in Bengel’s Archiv (1 B. S. 406 ff.) is to be 
credited, “the author has accomplished his task with such diligence, such 
sound judgment, such accuracy, and such nice and comprehensive know]l- 
edge of language, as must obtain for it the approbation of all friends of 
the well-grounded interpretation of the N.T.” <A very different and 
almost entirely opposite opinion has been expressed, however, by two 
scholars who must be regarded as most competent and impartial judges in 
this department: in the n. theol. Annal. 1816. 2 B. S. 859-879, and (by 
deWette?) in the A. LZ. 1816. N. 39-41. 5. 805-326. After long and 
various use of the book, I am compelled to say that I entirely concur in 
their decision. The principal fault of the book consists in the author’s 
not having correctly distinguished the classic Greek element from the 
Hebraistic in the diction of the N.T., and in his having consequently 
adduced as Hebraistic much either that is common to all cultivated lan- 
guages, or that occurs as frequently in the classics as in the N. T.; while 
from his partiality to Storr’s views, he has quite misinterpreted numerous 
passages of the N. T. by forcing Hebraisms upon them (see proof below). 
Moreover, the book is full of confusion, the matter is arranged most 
arbitrarily, and the whole begins with a section on Tropes !—a subject 
not belonging to Grammar at all. The last of the reviewers mentioned 
above does not, accordingly, seem too severe in concluding his criticism 
with these words: “Seldom have we met a work which was so complete 
a failure as this, and against the use of which we must warn the public so 
emphatically.” 

§ 4. Further, the detached grammatical remarks in commentaries 
on the books of the N. T., in miscellanies, and in exegetical mon- 
ographs, though sometimes exhibiting creditable research, failed 
to furnish, all taken together, a complete discussion of the Gram- 
mar of the N. T. These contributions, moreover, were rendered 
useless by that uncritical empiricism which controlled Greek 
Philology till the beginning of the present century, and Hebrew 
till a much more recent period; just as this same empiricism has 
imparted to the interpretation of the N. T. the impress of uncer- 


tainty and arbitrariness. The philosophical method of handling 


philological subjects, — that method which seeks in national and 
individual peculiarities of thought the grounds of all phenomena 
of speech, anomalies even not excepted, — has effected a complete 
revolution in the study of Greek ; and the application of the same 
method to the language of the N. T. can alone invest the Grammar 
of the N. T. with a scientific character, and elevate it to the dignity 
of a safe guide in interpretation. 


19 


T 
τὰ ed 


6th ed, 


20 


8 


8 INTRODUCTION. 


The empiricism that pervaded Greek philology manifested itself in the 
department of Grammar mainly in the following particulars: a. The gram- 
matical structure of the language was apprehended merely in the rudest 
outline ; hence the relation of kindred forms, e.g. of the Aor. and Perf., of 
the Subjunctive and the Optative, of the twofold order of negatives (οὐ 
and μή), matters in which the genius of the Greek language is especially 
conspicuous, was left quite uncertain. b. In regard to those forms the 
distinctive power of which had been in general discerned, an unlimited 


th ed. interchange was asserted, according to which, one tense, one case, one par- 


8 


ticle, was used for another; and even direct opposites (e.g. Pret. and Fut., 
ἀπό and πρός, etc.) were supposed to be interchanged. c. A multitude of 
ellipses was devised, and in the most simple expression something was 
said to be understood. This method of procedure, still exhibited in Fis- 
cher’s copious Animad. ad Welleri Grammat. Gr. (Lips. 1798 ff. 8 Spec. 
8yo.), was applied by expositors to the N. T. They thought themselves 
warranted in using still greater liberties than Greek philologists, because 
the Hebrew, after which the diction of the N. T. was modelled, is charac- 
terized by want of precision in forms, and want of regularity in syntax, 
(which, therefore, was not treated systematically but only under the head 
of enallages and solecisms).' The natural consequences of such views were 


δ ed. abundantly apparent in the N. T. commentaries of the time; and Storr? 


21 


had the honor of reducing to a sort of system this farrago of grammatical 
empiricism. Apart from all other evils resulting from such principles, 
they afforded unbounded license to the caprice of expositors, and made it 
easy for them to discover in the words of the sacred authors sentiments 
quite contradictory.’ 


1 This empiricism was but occasionally and partially combated by enlightened 
scholars. Thus numerous misapprehensions of expositors were pointed out, very intel- 
ligently on the whole, by the Wittenberg professors Balth, Stolberg, in his Tractat. de 
soloecism. et barbarism. graecae N. F. dictioni falso tributis. Vit. (1681.) 1685. 4to., and 
Franz Woken, in his dissertation entitled: Pietas critica in hypallagas bibl. Viteb. 
1718. 8vo., and particularly in his Enallagae e N. T. graeci textus praecipuis et plu- 
rimis locis exterminatae.. Viteb. 1730. 8vo. Also J. Conr. Schwarz evinces highly 
respectable research and judgment in his Lib. de opinatis discipulor. Chr. soloecismis. 
Cob. 1730. 4to. Such protests, however, either obtained no attention, or were drowned 
by a contorte! artificiose ! 

2 How entirely different from his acute countryman Alb. Bengel, in his Gnomon, who, 
though he is often drawn into over-refined expositions, and attributes to the apostles 
his own dialectic conceptions, might have served for years as a model of careful and 
instructive exposition. While he turned attention to grammatical inquiries (cf. e.g. 
Acts iii. 19; xxvi. 2; 1 Cor. xii. 15; Matt. xviii. 17; Heb. vi. 4.), he devoted special 
diligence in lexical matters to synonyms. 

8 Sunt, says Tittmann (de scriptor. N. T. diligentia gramm. Lips. 1813. 4to., in 


Synonym. N. T. I. p. 206), qui grammaticarum legum observationem in N. T. inter- 


pretatione parum curent et, si scriptoris cujusdam verba grammatice i.e. ex legibus 
linguae explicata sententiam..... ab ipsorum opinione alienam prodant, nullam 
illarum legum rationem habeant, sed propria verborum vi neglecta scriptorem dixisse 


~~? τὮ ὅ. 


a 


a a Ne 1". δ ee ae ee ee ae ee πὰ ΗΝ 


INTRODUCTION. 9 


The Greek philologists were the first to abandon this empiricism. 
Reitz’s pupil, Gottfr. Hermann, by his work De Emendanda Ratione 
Grammaticae Gr., gave the first powerful impulse to the rational’ investi- 
gation of the noble Greek tongue. This method has now, after the lapse 


of more than fifty years, become so general, and produced such important 9 
results, and of late has allied itself so successfully to historical * research, Tih ed 


that Greek grammar has become transformed. The treatment of the sub- 
ject has been rational, because 

a. The primary import of all grammatical forms (the cases, tenses, 
moods), that is, the notion corresponding to every such form in the Greek 
mind, was distinctly settled ; and to this primary notion all actual uses of 
the same form were referred. Thus a multitude of ellipses disappeared, 
and enallage was reduced within its natural and narrow bounds. 

b. Even in the case of such deviations from the established laws of the 
language as had been adopted, either generally or by individual authors, — 
anacoluthon, confusio duarum structurarum, attractio, constructio ad sen- 
sum, brachylogia, etc.,— pains were taken to show how they originated 
in the mind of the speaker or writer. 

The Greek language is thus exhibited as the expression of Greek thought 
—as aliving idiom. Every form and turn of expression is not merely 
stated as a matter of fact, but is traced back to the thinking mind, and an 
attempt is made to comprehend it in its origin within the soul. By such 
a method every unintelligible usage disappears of itself, such as the as- 
sumption that a writer wishing to express a past event has employed a fut. 
tense; that intending to say owt of, he has said at; that wishing to call 
some one learned, he has called him more learned ; that meaning to sub- 
join a cause, he has written consequently ; that desirous of saying 7 saw a 
man, he has said J saw the man, ete. 

For a long time, however, Biblical philologists took no notice of all this 
progress in Greek grammar (and lexicography). They clung to old Viger 
and to Storr, and kept aloof from classical philology, under the impression 
(by no one distinctly avowed, to be sure, in recent times) that N. T. Greek, 
because Hebraistic, could not be subjected to the same philosophical 
method of inquiry. They would not perceive that Hebrew itself, like 
every other human language, admits and requires a philosophical treat- 
ment. Through the persevering efforts of Ewald, this truth is now uni- 
versally acknowledged. No one now denies that the ultimate explanation 
of Hebrew modes of expression must be sought for in Hebrew modes of 


contendant, quae talibus verbis nemo sana mente praeditus dicere unquam potuit. Hermann’s 
(ad Vig. 788) satirical remarks were just. 

1 I should prefer this epithet to philosophical, because the latter may easily give rise 
to misunderstanding. All merely empirical philology is irrational; it regards lan- 
guage as something merely external, and not as the expression of thought. Cf. Titt- 
mann, as above, 8. 205 sq. ᾿ 

2 G. Bernhardy, wissenschaftl. Syntax der griech. Sprache. Berl. 1829. 8vo. 

2 


6th ed, 


22 


10 


10 INTRODUCTION. 


thought, and that a simple-minded people would be the last to repudiate 
the fundamental principles of human speech.’ Scholars are no longer con- 


Τὰ ed. tent to give a preposition, for instance, the most diverse meanings accord- 


10 
Gih ef. 


23 


ing to the assumed requirements of a context superficially examined. But 
an endeavor is made to point out the transition from the primary import 
of every particle to every one of its secondary meanings; and without 
this, every alleged signification is regarded as an unscientific assumption. 
A student is no longer satisfied with the vague remark that to a Hebrew, 
non omnis — which in reason can only mean not every one — is the same 
as omnis non, that is, nuwllus ; on the contrary, he refers to the true prin- 
ciple in every such case to be kept in view. 

N. T. Grammar, therefore, must strive after a rational exposition of the 
language of the N. T. if it will attain a scientific basis itself, or secure the 
same in turn to exegesis. All that has been already achieved in Greek 
philology must be carefully turned to account. It must, however, be 
remembered, that not every nice distinction propounded by the linguists is 
to be viewed as established (and even the text perhaps altered accordingly), 
but that philology is constantly progressive. Many views have already 
required to be considerably modified (those, for instance, relating to the 
use of εἰ with the subjunctive) ; others are still matters of disputation even 
among the best scholars (for instance, certain uses of ἄν). 

Since 1824, N. Τὶ Grammar in particular has received valuable contri- 
butions from Fritzsche, in his Dissertatt. in 2 Epist. ad Cor. (Lips. 1824.), 
in his Commentaries on Matthew and Mark, in his Conject. in N. T. Lips. 
1825. 2 Spec. 8vo., and especially in his Comment. on the Epistle to the 
Romans, Hal. 1836. 8vo. To these must be added the Dissertations of 
Gieseler and Bornemann in Rosenmiiller’s Exeget. Repert. 2 B., as well 
as the latter’s Scholia in Lucae Evang. Lips. 1830. 8vo., and, in part, his 
edition of the Acts of the Apostles (Acta Apost. ad Cod. Cantabrig. fidem 
rec. et interpr. est. Grossenhain, 1848. 8vo. I.). Finally, many grammat- 
ical questions have been discussed in the controversial correspondence 
between Fritzsche and Tholuck.? 


1 Rational investigation must be founded on historical. The whole field of language 
must first be historically surveyed, before we can explain individual phenomena. A 
simple language supposes simplicity of thought; and the explanation of forms and 
expressions is more easy in Hebrew, than in languages of less simplicity. The rational 
investigation of Hebrew implies tracing out all transitions from one signification of ἃ 
word to another, all constructions and turns of expression, as they occurred in the 
Hebrew mind; since language is merely the image of thought (as thinking is, according 
to the Hebrew view itself, unuttered speech). To attempt to delineate ἃ priori the 
laws of language is absurd. It is readily conceded that the rational method of investi- 
gation may be now and then misapplied, as even the Greek philologists have not 
escaped over-refinements. Adherence, however, to empirical stupidity from the appre 
hension of such danger is disgraceful. 

2 Fritzsche, Ueber die Verdienste Ὁ. Tholuck’s um die Schrifterklaérung. Halle. 1831. 
8vo. Tholuck, Beitrage zur Spracherklérung des N. T. Halle. 1832. 8vo. Fritzsche, 











ΡΥ ee ee ee ee ee ee νῸ 


INTRODUCTION. 11 


Philological investigation into the language of the N. T. has not re- 
mained wholly without influence! on any of the numerous commentaries 
which have recently appeared, whether emanating from the critical, evan- 
gelical, or philosophical school of theology ; although but a few of them 
have treated philological points attentively and independently (as van 
Hengel, Liicke, Bleek, Meyer). An intelligent estimate of improved phil- 
ological principles in their application to the N. T., has been given by 
H. G. Hélemann, Comment. de interpretatione sacra cum profana feliciter 
conjungenda. Lips. 1832. 8vo. 

N. T. Grammar has recently found its way from Germany to England 
and North America; partly in a translation of the fourth edition of the 
present book (New York and London, 1840), and pxrtly in a separate 
(original ?) work, entitled, A Greek Grammar to the N. T., etc., by the 
Rey. William Trollope, M.A. London, 1842. 8vo. An earlier work on 
this subject, entitled, A Grammar of the N. T. Dialect, by Moses Stuart. 
Andover. 1841. 8vo., I have not yet seen. Moreover, the special gram- 
matical characteristics of individual writers have begun to attract attention 
(yet see above, p. 4): Gl. Ph. Ch. Kaiser, Diss. de Speciali Joa. Ap. 
Grammatica Culpa Negligentiae liberanda. Erlang. 1842. 11. 4to.; also 
De Speciali Petri Ap. Grammatica Culpa Negligentiae liberanda. Erlang. 
1848. 4to. 

[In Germany, too, works upon N. T. Grammar have since been issued by 
Alex. Buttmann (Grammatik des N. T. Sprachgebrauchs. Im Anschlusse 
an Ph, Buttmann’s griech. Grammatik. Berl. 1859. 8vo.) and S. Ch. Schir- 
litz (Grundziige der N. T. Griicitéit nach den besten Quellen fiir Studi- 
rende der Theol. u. Philol. Giessen. 1861. 8vo.).] 


Praliminarien zur Abbitte und Ehrenerklarung, die ich gern dem D. Tholuck gewiihren 
mochte. Halle. 1832. 8vo. Tholuck, Noch ein ernstes Wort an D. Fritzsche. Halle. 
1832. 8vo. Tholuck laid more stress on philological investigation in his Commentary 
on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hamb. 1836, 1840, 1850. 8vo. The anonymous author 
of Beitrage zur Erklérung des Br. an die Hebr. Leipz. 1840. 8vo., passes a severe 
judgment rather on the hermeneutical than the grammatical merits of Tholuck. 

1 Even on the commentaries of the excellent BCrusius, whose weakest side is un- 
doubtedly the philological. 


11 
Τὰ ed 





12 ΓΑ: 


ΤΠ ed. 
τὰ ON THE CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION, ESPECIALLY - 
25 IN ITS GRAMMATICAL ASPECTS. 


—_@— 


81, VARIOUS OPINIONS CONCERNING THE CHARACTER OF THE 
N. T. DICTION. 


1. TaoueH the character of the N. T. diction is pretty distinct 
and obvious, Biblical philologists long entertained erroneous, or 
at least imperfect and one-sided, views on the subject. For, dog- 
matic considerations, combined with ignorance of later Greek 
dialectology, rendered minds in other respects intelligent incapable 
of perceiving exegetical truth. 

From the beginning of the 17th century various distinguished 
scholars (Purists) repeatedly attempted to demonstrate that the 
style of the N.'T. reaches in every respect the standard of classical 
purity and elegance ; while others (Hebraists) not only recognized 
its Hebrew coloring, but in part at least grossly exaggerated it. 
Towards the end of the 17th century the opinion of the Hebraists 
obtained the ascendancy; though it did not altogether suppress 
that of the Purists, which found very learned defenders. About 
the middle of the 18th century, however, the Purist party became 
extinct, and the principles of the Hebraists, slightly modified in 
some particulars, became universal. Not until very lately have 
scholars begun to perceive the one-sidedness of these principles, 
and to adopt the correct intermediate views which Beza and H. 
Stephanus had already in the main pointed out. 


The history of the various opinions which from time to time were 
advanced, often with great controversial bitterness, respecting the Greek 
style of the N. T., is briefly related in Morus, Acroas. acad. sup. Hermeneut. 
_N. T., ed. Eichstadt, Tom. i. p. 216 sqq.; in Meyer, Gesch. der Schrifter- 
klar. iii, 342 ff. (cf. Eichstadt, Pr. sententiar. de dictione scriptor. N.T. 
brevis censura. Jen. 1845. 4to.) ; with several important inaccuracies, in 
Planck, Einleit. in d. theol. Wissensch. ii. 43 ff. (cf. Stange, theol. Symmikta, 


§ 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION. 13 


ii. 295 64). For the bibliography of the subject see Walch, biblioth. theol. 13 
iy. 276 sqq.1 From these sources, with occasional corrections, we present Τὰ ed 
the following remarks as sufficient for our purpose : bth od 
Th. Beza, in his Digressio de dono linguarum et apostol. sermone (on 
Acts x. 46), in reply to Erasmus’s assertion Apostolorum sermo non solum 26 
impolitus et inconditus verum etiam imperfectus et perturbatus, aliquoties 
plane soloecissans, defended the simplicity and force of the N. T. diction ; 
and its Hebraisms in particular, which, as is well known, he was far from 
denying, he represented in a very advantageous light as ejusmodi, ut nullo 


ee ee ae ee ee oP OS 


= 


alio idiomate tam feliciter exprimi possint, imo interdum ne exprimi quidem, 
— in fact as gemmae, quibus (apostoli) scripta sua exornarint. After him, 


ee ee ee eee eS ee Ὁ 


ἘΦ ae ΜΓ ee ee, 


H. Stephanus, in the preface to his edition of the N. T. of 1576, combated 
the views of those qui in his scriptis inculta omnia et horrida esse putant ; 
and labored to show, by specimens, what fine Greek turns of expression 
occur in the style of the N. T., and that even the admixture of Hebraisms 
imparts to it inimitable force and expressiveness. 

Though the beauties pointed out are rhetorical rather than linguistic, 
and the Hebraisms are overrated, yet the judgment of these two masters 
of Greek is not so one-sided as it is generally said to be, and on the whole 
comes nearer the truth than that of many later expositors. 

After Drusius and Glass had specified and explained Hebraisms in the 
N.T. without opposition, extravagant notions were first promulgated by 
Seb. Pfochen, in his Diatribe de linguae graecae N.T. puritate (Amst. 
1629; ed. 2, 1633. 12mo.). Having in the preface stated the subject of 
his inquiry to be: an stylus N. T. sit vere graecus nec ab aliorum Graecorum 
stylo alienior talisque, qui ab Homero, Demosthene aliisque Graecis intelligi 
potuisset §§ 81-129, he endeavors to demonstrate by copious quotations, 
graecos autores profanos eisdem phrasibus et verbis loquutos esse, quibus 
scriptores N. T. (§ 29). This juvenile treatise (though in substance ap- 
proved by Erasmus Schmid, as afterwards appeared from his Opus posthu- 
mum, 1658) seems, with its strict Purism, to have produced at the time no 
great impression. 

The Hamburg rector Joach. Junge (1637, 1639) in reality, though indi- 
rectly, first gave rise to a controversy on the nature of the N.T. diction. 27 
His opponent, the Hamburg pastor Jac. Grosse (1640), though not endors- 14 
ing Junge’s real opinion respecting the Hellenism (not barbarism)? of the Τὰ οἱ 


1See also Baumgarten, Polemik, iii. 176 ff. The opinions of the (apologetical) 
Fathers on the style of the N. T, are given summarily in ./. Lami, de. erudit. apostolor. 
p- 138sqq. They treat the subject less under a philological than a rhetorical point of 
view. Theodoret, gr. affect. cur. s., triumphantly opposes the σολοικισμοὶ ἁλιευτικοί to 
the ξυλλογισμοὶ ἀττικοί. 

2 Junge himself thus states his true opinion, in a German memorial addressed to the 
Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs in 1637 [ef. Joach. Jungius Ueber die Originalsprache 
des N. T. vom Jahre 1637. Aufgefunden, zuerst herausgegeben und eingeleitet von 
Joh. Geffcken. Hamb. 1863. 8vo.]: I have distinctly said, and I still say, that the style 


18 


εἴ tots §1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION. 


N.T. style, admitted its harmlessness.1 Dan. Wulfer, however, came 


δὰ οἷ, forward the same year with Innocentia Hellenistarum vindicata (see 1, etc.), 


28 


in which he asserted that Grosse’s reasoning was neither clear nor con- 
vincing.? Grosse had now to contend against Wulfer, whose misunder- 
standings he exposed, and also against Joh. Musaeus, the theologian of 
Jena (1641-42), who had charged him with vacillation and contradiction, 
but had in view rather his doctrinal opinions (respecting verbal inspiration) ; 
so that Grosse published, in all, five short dissertations (1641-42), vindi- 
cating, not indeed the Grecian elegance, but the purity and neni of the 
language of the N. T. 

Without mingling in these controversies, which descended into odious 
personalities and were nearly fruitless to science, Dan. Heinsius (1643) 
asserted the Hellenism of the N. T. diction; and Thom. Gataker (de novi 
instrum. stylo dissert. 1648) wrote expressly against the Purism of Pfochen, 
with learning, but not without exaggeration. Joh. Vorst now published 
(1658, 1665) an elaborate and perspicuous list of the Hebraisms of the 
N. T. which Hor. Vitringa shortly afterwards animadverted upon as highly 
partial.® 

J. H. Bocler (1641) and J. Olearius (1668)* adopted intermediate views, 
carefully discriminating between the Greek and the Hebrew elements in 
the style of the N.T., and J. Leusden agreed with them in the main, 
although he is inferior to Olearius in discretion. 


of the N. T. is not classical Greek. ..... The question an N. T. scateat barbarismis, 
is so outrageous, that no Christian man ever entertained it before;..... I never could 
be brought to admit that there are barbarous expressions in the.N. T., because the 
Greeks themselves regard-a barbarism as a vitium. 

1 His two leading positions are thus expressed: quod quamvis evangelistae et apos- 
toli in N. T. non adeo ornato et nitido, tumido et affectato (!) dicendi genere usi sint 
ΣΝ εὐ impium tamen, imo blasphemum sit, si quis inde 8S. literarum studiosus graecum 
stylum..... sugillare, vilipendere et juventuti suspectum facere ipsique vitia et notam 
soloecismorum et barbarismorum attricare contendat..... Quod nec patres, qui soloe- 
cismorum et barbarismorum meminerunt et apostolos idiotas fuisse scripserunt, nec illi 
autores, qui stylum N. T. hellenisticum esse statuerunt, nec isti, qui in N. T. Ebrais- 
mos et Chaldaismos esse observarunt, stylum §S. apostolorum contemserint, sugillarint 
eumq. impuritatis alicujus accusarint cet. 

2 Grosse’s dissertation was specially directed against a possible inference from the 
proposition that the N. T. is not written in so good Greek as that employed by native 
Greek authors ; and, essentially, refers to adversaries that (at least in Hamburg) had 
then no existence. Moreover his whole argument is rather of a negative kind, as appears 
for example from the résumé (p. 40 of Grosse’s Trias) : etiamsi graecus stylus apostolor. 
non sit tam ornatus et affectatus, ut fuit ile qui fuit florente Graecia, non atticus ut 
Athenis, non doricus ut Corinthi, non ionicus ut Ephesi, non aeolicus ut Troade, fuit 
tamen vere graecus ab omni soloecismorum et barbarismorum labe immunis. 

8 Vorst in the preface utters his conviction : sacros codices N. T. talibus et vocabulis 
et phrasibus, quae hebraeam linguam sapiant, seatere plane. Cf. further, his Cogitata 
de stylo N. T., prefixed to Fischer’s edition of the work de Hebraismis. 

4 J. Cocceji stricturae in Pfochen. diatrib. were first printed solely for private distri- 
bution, and afterwards published in Rhenferd’s collection. ; 


ee a ee 


81, OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION. 15 


It now came to be very generally admitted that Hebraisms constitute a 
prominent element in N. T. diction, and give it a coloring, not indeed 
barbarous, but widely removed from classic purity (see also Werenfels, 
Opuse. i. p. 311 544.).} The same view was advanced by Mos. Solanus, 
in a tardy but very sensible pamphlet against Pfochen. Even J. Heinr. 
Michaelis (1707) and Ant. Blackwall (1727) did not presume to deny the 
existence of Hebraisms, but tried to prove that the style of the N. T. 
writers, notwithstanding the Hebraisms, has all the properties of an elegant 
style, and in this respect is not inferior to the purity of the classics. The 
last-named scholar begins his work, which abounds in excellent remarks, 
thus: tantum abest, ut hebraismos in N. T. reperiri infitiemur, ut eorum 
potius insignem, qua hic divinus abundat liber, copiam ad commoditatem 
ejus et elegantiam majorem afferre accessionem arbitremur. As little effect, 
however, had these scholars on the now established opinion as the erudite 
Ch. Siegm. Georgi, who, in his Vindiciae N. T. ab Ebraismis (1752), re- 
turned to the strongest Purism; and in a new work, Hierocriticus sacer 
(1733), defended his assertions. He was followed, but with no greater 
success, by J. Conr. Schwarz, whose Commentarii crit. et philol. linguae 
gr. N. T. Lips. 1736. 4to., chiefly aimed at demonstrating the Greek purity 
even of expressions taken for Hebraisms.2, To these must be added, as 
the last who opposed the misuse of Hebraisms, El. Palairet (observatt. 
philol. crit. in N. T. L. B. 1752. 8vo.),? and H. W. van Marle (florileg. 
obsery. in epp. apost. L. B. 1758. 8vo.). Through the influence of the 
school of Ernesti, the more correct estimate of the language of the N. T. 
was generally diffused over Germany.* Cf. Ernesti’s Institut. Interpret. 
i. 2. cap. 3. 


1 Hemsterhuis ad Lucian. dial. mar. 4,3: eorum, qui orationem N. T. graecam esse 
castigatissimam contendunt, opinio perquam mihi semper ridicula fuit visa. Also, Bith. 
Stolberg, de soloecismis et barbarismis N.T. Viteb. 1681. 4to. and 1685. 4to., wished 
merely to vindicate the N. T. diction from blemishes unjustly ascribed to it; but, in 
fact, attempted to explain away many real Hebraisms. 

? In the anticipation of certain victory he says in p. 8 of his preface : olim hebraismi, 
syrismi, chaldaismi, rabinismi (sic !), latinismi cet. celebrabantur nomina, ut vel serip- 
tores sacri suam graccae dictionis ignorantiam prodere aut in graeco sermone tot lin- 
guarum notitiam ostentasse viderentur vel saltem ‘interpretes illorum literatissimi et 
singularum locutionum perspicacissimi judicarentir. Sed conata haec ineptiarum et 
vanitatis ita sunt etiam a nobis convicta, ut si qui cet. A satire on the Purists will be 
found in Somnium in quo praeter cetera genius sec. vapulat. Alteburg. 1761, p- 97 sqq. 

8 Supplements by Pal. himself may be seen in the Biblioth. Brem. nova Cl. 3 and 4. 
On the whole, Pal. produces passages almost exclusively in defence of such significa- 
tions and phrases, as no judicious person would take to be Hebraisms. 

* Ernesti’s view of the N. T. diction (diss. de difficult. interpret. grammat. N. T. § 12) 
may be recalled here : genus orationis in libris N. T. esse 6 pure graecis et ebraicam 
maxime consuetudinem referentibus verbis formulisque dicendi mixtum et temperatum, 
id quidem adeo evidens est iis, qui satis graece sciunt, ut plane misericordia digni sint, qui 
omnia bene graeca esse contendant. 


15 
Τὰ ed, 


6th od 


16 § 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION. 


29 Most of the above-mentioned old dissertations (besides others), written 

16 in the Purist controversy, are collected in J. Rhenferd’s Dissertatt. philolog: 

ith ed. theolog. de Stylo N. T. syntagma, Leov. 1702. 4to., and in (what may be 
considered as a supplement to Rhenferd’s collection) Taco Hajo van den 
Honert, Syntagma dissertatt. de stylo N. T. graeco. Amst. 1703. 4to. 

15 Let us endeavor briefly to characterize the efforts of those who attrib- 

6th ed. uted classical purity to the N. T. diction.’ ; 

Their great object was to collect from native Greek authors passages in 
which those very same words and phrases occur which are found in the 
N.T., and are there explained as Hebraisms. Now, apart from the cir- 
cumstance that what is strictly speaking the body of the language was not 
in general distinguished from the rhetorical element, the Purists entirely 
overlooked the following considerations : 

“8. That numerous expressions and phrases (particularly such as are 
figurative), owing to their simplicity and naturalness, are common to all, 
or at least to many languages, and cannot with propriety be called either 
Grecisms or Hebraisms.’ 

b. That a distinction is to be made between the diction of prose and 
that of poetry, and also between figurative expressions employed very 
rarely and by individual authors to give composition a peculiar elevation 
(as lumina orationis), and those which have become the common property 
of the language; and that, if in plain prose like that of the N. T. expres- 
sions used by Pindar, Auschylus, Euripides,* etc. occur, or if such expres- 
sions, as well as rare Greek figurative phrases, recur as ordinary phraseol- 
ogy, this by no means proves the classical purity of the N. T. 

c. That when an expression is found alike in Hebrew and in Greek, the 
training and history of the writers of the N. T. render it in general more 


1 The dissertations of Wulfer, Grosse, and Musaeus, though of trifling importance 
compared to their size, are missed with regret from this collection, and more of Junge’s 
than the sententiae doct. vir. de stylo N. T. should have been admitted. Besides, ef. 
Blessig, praesidia interpret. N. T. ex auctorib. graec. Argent. 1778. 4to., and Mittenzwey, 
locorum quorundam e Hutchinsoni ad Xenoph. Cyrop. notis, quib. purum et elegans 
N.T. dicendi genus defenditur, refutatio. Coburg. 1763.4to. An essay by G. C. Drau- 
dius, de stylo N. T., in the Primitt. Alsfeld., Niirnb. 1736. 8vo., I have not seen ; (see 
Neubauer, Nachr. von jetzt lebenden Theol. i. 253 ff). 

2 Mittenzwey made some remarkson this in his Essay, already mentioned. 

8 Simplicity and graphic expression are common to Hebrew and Hebrew-Greek with 
the diction of Homer ; and particular phrases haying these characteristics could with as 
little propriety be called Hebraisms in the latter as Grecisms in the former. In general, 
languages have points of contact, especially in popular speech, which is universally sim- 
ple and graphic ; while cultivated diction, as it is coined by the learned, is more isolated. 
Hence in Latin, for instance, most of what are called Germanisms are to be found in 
the style of comedies, epistles, etc. 

4 See, on the other hand, Krebs, observ. praef. p. 3. Leusden, de dialectt. p. 37, says, 
with great absurdity : nos non fugit, carmina istoram hominum (tragicor.) innumeris 
hebraismis esse contaminata, Accordingly Fischer, ad Leusden, p, 114, finds Hebra- 
isms in the poems of Homer. 


81. OPINIONS ON THE N.T. DICTION. 17 


probable that such expression is copied immediately from the Hebrew, 
than that it is borrowed from the choicer literary language of Greece. 30 
Not to mention, 

d. That those uncritical collectors huddled together many passages out 
of Greek authors where, a. the same word indeed occurs, but in a different 17 
signification ; or, f. expressions are found only similar, not identical. ith ed. 
Further, 

e. That they unhesitatingly used even the Byzantine writers, into 
whose language, through the influence of the church, many elements of the 
Hebraizing N. T. phraseology may have been transferred (as in particular 16 
instances can be proved to be extremely probable ; cf. Niebuhr, Index to Mt ad 
Agath. under ζημιοῦσϑαι) ; and, at all events, these Byzantine authors are 
not standards of classic Greek purity. Finally, 

f. That they passed over, and were forced to pass over, many expres- 
sions in silence, because they are undeniable Hebraisms.' 

Thus the evidence produced in favor of Purism was partly defective 
and partly irrelevant. Besides, most of the Purists restricted themselves 
mainly to, the lexical side of the question; Georgi alone discussed the 
grammatical with a fulness sustained by stores of erudition. 

In proof of the preceding statements, we subjoin several striking exam- 
ples (cf. also Mori acroas. |. c. p. 222 sqq.) : And as respects 

a. Matt. v. 6, πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην. Examples are pro- 
duced from Xenophon, A®schines, Lucian, Artemidorus, to prove that 
διψῆν, in this (figurative) sense, is pure Greek. But it is so used in Latin 
also, and in nearly all languages; it cannot, therefore, be regarded as a 
Grecism any more than a Hebraism. The same holds of éoJiew (κατεσϑέ- 
ew) in the figurative sense of conswme, waste. This cannot be proved from 
liad 23, 182 to be a Grecism, nor from Deut. xxxii. 22 etc. to be a He- 
braism ; but it is common to all languages. In the same way we might 
dispense with parallels to yevea generation i.e. the individuals of a partic- 
ular generation (Georgi, Vind. p. 39), to χείρ power, to ὃ κύριος τῆς οἰκίας, 
and the like. And it is really ridiculous when Matt. x. 27 κηρύξατε ἐπὶ 
τῶν δωμάτων is authenticated by sop. 139, 1, ἔριφος ἐπί τινος 
δώματος ἑστώς. Pfochen’s dissertation contains a great number of such 
idle and preposterous remarks. 

Ὁ. That κοιμᾶσϑαι signifies mori is proved from the Iliad 11, 241 
(Georgi, vind. p. 122 sqq.) κοιμήσατο χάλκεον ὕπνον, and Soph. Electr. 
510; that σπέρμα is used also by the Greeks for proles is proved chiefly 
from the poets, as Eurip. Iph. Aul. 524; Iph. Taur. 987; Hec. 254, and 
Soph. Electr. 1508 (Georgi, vind. p. 87 sqq.) ; that ποιμαίνειν means regere, 
from Anacr. 57,8; that ἰδεῖν and ϑεωρεῖν ϑάνατον are good Greek, from 31 
Soph. Elect. 205 (Schwarz, Comm. p. 410), or from δέρκεσϑαι κτύπον, 


1 This applies also to J. E. Ostermann, whose Positiones philologicae graecum N. Τὶ 
contextum concernentes have been reprinted in Crenii exercitatt. fasc. ii. p. 485 566. 
3 


18 
Ith αἱ. 


17 


6th ed. 


32 


18 δ 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION. 


σκότον, in tragedians. For ποτήριον πίνειν ina figuretine sense (Matt. 
xx. 22), Schwarz quotes AEschyl. Agam. 1397. That πίπτειν signifies 
trritum esse, the established meaning in Hebrew, the same writer proves 
by Plato’s figurative expression, δοκεῖ ἡδονή σοι πεπτωκέναι καϑαπερεὶ πλη- 
γεῖσα ὑπὸ τῶν νῦν δὴ λόγων, Phileb. p. 22. 6. 

ο. The phrase γινώσκειν ἄνδρα, though not unknown in Greek (Jacobs, 
ad Philostr. imagg. p. 583), may be derived with assurance directly from 
the common Hebrew phrase wx >7>, and regarded in our authors as a 
Hebraism. In like manner σπλάγχνα compassion, ξηρά land as opposed 
to water (Fischer ad Leusden dialectt. 31), χεῖλος in the sense of shore, 
στόμα for edge of a sword (cf., however, Boissonade, Nie. p. 282), παχύνειν 
to be stupid, foolish, κύριος κυρίων, εἰςέρχεσϑαι εἰς τὸν κόσμον are primarily, 
no doubt, copied from the Hebrew, and are not to be proved to be pure 
Greek by parallels from Herodot., A-lian, Xenophon, Diodor. Sic., Philos- 
tratus, and others. ᾿ 

d. a, That ἐν is used by Greek authors to express the casus instru- 
mentalis — which with certain limitations is trae — Pfochen tries to prove 
by such quotations as: πλέων ἐν ταῖς ναυσί (Xenoph.), ἦλϑε...... ἐν νηὶ 
μελαίνῃ (Hesiod)! That good Greek authors use ῥῆμα for res is said to be 
apparent from Platt. legg. 797 ο. (τούτου ῥήματος καὶ rod δόγματος οὐκ εἶναι 
ζημίαν μείζω), where ῥῆμα may be translated verdict, decision. Χορτάζειν 
to fill, (of persons), is proved to be pure Greek from Plat. rep. 2, 372, 
where it refers to swine! Ζητεῖν ψυχήν twos is affirmed to be classical, 
from Eur. Io. 1112; Thue. 6, 27, etc., where ζητεῖν alone occurs in the 
sense of insidiari, or rather seek for (in order to kill). That ὀφείλημα in 
good Greek signifies peccatum, Schwarz tries to prove by Plat. Cratyl. 
400 c., where, however, ὀφειλόμενα denotes as elsewhere debita. Equally 
inappropriate are most of the passages from which Georgi (Hierocrit. p. 36 
sq., 186 sq.) attempts to show that in the best Greek authors the preposi- 
tions εἰς and ἐν are interchanged, as they are in the N. T. Cf. also Krebs, 
Obs. p. 14 sq. , 

β. That εὑρίσκειν χάριν (ἔλεος) παρά τινι is not a Hebraism, Georgi 
(Vind. p. 116) tries to demonstrate from a passage of Demosthenes con- 
taining the words εὑρίσκεσθαι τὴν εἰρήνην, πὴν δωρεάν, as if the Hebraism in 
question did not lie rather in the whole phrase (for there is nothing peculiar 
to Hebrew in using find for obtain), and as if nothing depended on the 
middle voice. Palairet quotes Aristoph. Acharn. κρατὴρ αἵματος, and 
similar expressions, to justify the use of ποτήριον for sors ; and Schwarz 
defends πίπτειν irritum esse by a reference to Plat. Euthyphr. 14d. οὐ 
χαμαὶ πεσεῖται ὅ,τι ἂν εἴποις. Passages containing the words οὔτε μέγα 
οὔτε σμικρόν were quoted to show that the well-known Merismus ἀπὸ 
μικροῦ ἕως μεγάλου is pure Greek (Georgi, Vind. p. 310 sqq.; Schwarz, 
Comment. p. 917; cf. Schifer, Julian. p. xxi.). In such Merismus itself, 
however, there is nothing Hebraistic, but only in the particular formula 


§ 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION. 19 


given above ἀπὸ puxp. ἕως wey. Theophan. Cont. p. 615 Bekk. is the first 
writer in whom this form occurs. Καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας, ὀσφύος, Georgi 
(Vind. p. 304) supports by passages in which καρπός alone is used to 
denote the fruit of the human body. ’ Aristoph. Nub. πλέον πλέον, more 
and more, is not sufficient to prove that δύο δύο, two and two, is a Grecism 3 

it would be necessary to produce examples where the repeated cardinal is 
employed for ἀνὰ δύο, ἀνὰ τρεῖς, etc., ὃ 37,3. In the same way ὅσσα δ᾽ 
ἀκούσας εἰςεθέμην is vainly quoted from Callimachus to prove that τιθέναι 

εἰς τὰ ὦτα is pure Greek, as the two phrases are essentially unlike each 
other. Yet such specimens might be multiplied without end. What 19 
Georgi, Vind. p. 25, produces from Arrian. Epictet. in defence of ὁ ἀδελφός Τὰ od, 
alter, seems peculiarly ridiculous. 

e. Schwarz, p. 1245, asserts, on the NAA? of Nicetas, the pure » Ciinek 
character of the phrase στηρίζειν τὸ zpdswrov and the word ἐνωτίζεσθαι ; 
and Palairet proves that of 7 ξηρά in the sense of continent, from Jo. 
Cinnam. hist. iv. p. 183. Pfochen still more oddly vindicates the use of 
κοινός to signify 7mmundus, from Lucian, Mort. Peregrin. c. 13, where 
Lucian derisively employs a Judeo-Christian expression. 

f. Of the numerous Hebraistic words and phrases which the Purists 
passed over in silence, it will suffice to mention: zpéswrov λαμβάνειν, σὰρξ 18 
καὶ αἷμα, vids εἰρήνης, ἐξέρχεσθαι ἐξ ὀσφύος τινός, ποιεῖν ἔλεος (χάριν) μετά 6th ed, 
τινος, ἀποκρίνεσθαι without a preceding question, ἐξομολογεῖσθαι θεῷ (to 
praise God) and many others; see § 3. 

After Salmasius, whose work De Lingua Hellen. later scholars had 
quite forgotten, Sturz’s dissertation De Dialecto Alexandrina (Lips. 1784, 
4to., and Ger. 1788-93, 4to.), 2d enlarged ed. Lips. 1809, 8vo., led the 
way to a correct estimate of N. T. diction, particularly as respects its basis, 
the Greek. (For able observations on Sturz, see the Heidelb. Jahrb. 
1810. 18 Heft, S. 266 ff) On this subject, therefore, Keil (Lehrb. der 
Hermeneut. S. 11f.), Bertholdt (Einleit. in ἃ. Bib. 1 Th. 5. 155 f), 
Eichhorn (Einleit. ins N. T. 4 Bd. S. 96 ff.), and Schott (Isagoge in N. T. 
p- 497 sqq-) have written more satisfactorily than many earlier critics, 
but without exhausting the subject, and without exhibiting the requisite 
scientific precision. In both these respects the younger Planck has sur- 
passed his predecessors ; and (avoiding a fundamental mistake into which 
Sturz fell) he was the first to unfold clearly, and on the whole correctly, 
the character of the N.T. diction, in his De vera natura atque indole 
orationis graecae N.T. comment. Gott. 1810, 4to. (reprinted in Com- 
mentatt. theol. v. Rosenmiiller, 1. 1. p. 112 sqq.). Cf. his Pr. Observatt. 
quaedam ad hist. verbi gr. N. T. ibid. 1821, 4to. (and in Commentatt. theol. 
v. Rosenmiiller, 1. 1. p. 193 sqq.). See also (de Wette) A. Lit. Z. 1816, 
No. xxix. 5. 306. 


33 


20 
τὰ ed. 


19 


Gth ed. 


20 § 2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. 


82. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. 


In the age of Alexander the Great and his successors the Greek 
language underwent an internal change of a double nature. On 
the one hand, a literary prose language was formed, which was 
founded on the Attic dialect, yet differed from it by adopting a 
common Greek element, and even admitting numerous provin- 
cialisms (ἡἧ κοινὴ or ἑλληνικὴ διάλεκτος). On the other hand, a 
popular spoken language arose, in which the’ previously distinct 
dialects spoken by the various Greek tribes were blended, with a 
predominance of the Macedonic variety. This latter compound, 
varying in some respects in the various provinces of Asia and Africa 
subjected to the Macedonian rule, constitutes the special founda- 
tion of the diction of the N. T., as it does also of the Septuagint 
and Apocrypha. Its peculiarities, — further modified by a dis- 
regard of nice distinctions, and by an effort after perspicuity and 
also after commodious forms of expression, — may be fitly ranged 
under two heads: Lewxical and Grammatical. 


The older dissertations on Greek Dialectology, so far as regards the 
κοινὴ διάλεκτος in particular, are now nearly useless. The subject is well, 
though briefly, treated by Matthiae (ausfiihrl. Gramm. ὃ 1-8) and still 
more thoroughly by Buttmann (ausfiihrl. griech. Sprachlehre, S. 1-8), 
and also, though not with complete accuracy, by Planck 1. ¢. p. 138-23. 
Cf. besides, Tittmann, Synon. I. p. 262 sq., and Bernhardy, 8S. 28 ff. 

The Jews in Egypt and Syria? —and to these we confine our remarks 
—Jlearned Greek principally from oral intercourse with Greeks, and not 
from books.® It is not surprising, then, that even in writing they retained, 


1 Sturz, de dial. maced. et alex. p. 26sqq. Yet the subject requires a new and 
thorough investigation ; decisions such as that in Thiersch de Pentat. LXX. p. 74, can 
by no means settle the question. 

2 A precise distinction cannot be drawn between what belonged to the language of 
Alexandria, and what was peculiar to the variety of Greek used in Syria (and Pales- 
tine); and even if it could, it would be of little importance as respects the N. T. Lich- 
horn’s attempt (Einl. ins N. T. IV. 124 ff.) is a failure, and could not be otherwise, as 
it was conducted with little judgment. Εὐχαριστεῖν, used by Demosthenes even, and 
from the time of Polybius by many writers, he pronounces an addition to the Alexan- 
drian diction ! ξενίζειν hospitio excipere, which is found not only in Xenophon but even 
in Homer, is labelled as an Alexandrian word! To what extent Greek was spoken by 
the Jews of Syria (and Palestine) we need not here inquire ; on this point see Paulus, 
de Jud. Palaest. Jesu et apostolor. tempore non aram. dialecto sed graeca quoque 
locutis. Jen. 1803. II. 4; Hug, Einleitung, 11. 31 ff. ; my Realwérterb. IT. 502. ; Schlei- 
ermacher, Hermeneutik, S. 61 f. 

8 That the style of the Greek-speaking Jews was affected by the perusal of the Sep- 
tuagint makes no essential difference here, where we have in view mainly the classic 


me =< yan 


~~ ee 


§2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. 21 


for the most part, the peculiarities of the popular spoken language. This 34 


* was the case with the LXX., the writers of the N. T., and the authors of 


many (the Palestin.) Apocrypha. Only a few learned Jews, who prized 21 
and studied Grecian literature, such as Philo and Josephus,’ attained a Tth ed 
style approximating to literary Greek. Though that popular variety of 
Greek is no longer perfectly known, yet, from a comparison of the Hel- 
lenistic language (Hebraisms excepted) with the later literary prose, it 
appears that, departing still more noticeably from classic elegance, it had 20 
adopted in greater abundance new and provincial words and forms, and 6th αἱ. 
begun to neglect more decidedly nice distinctions of construction and idiom, 
to violate grammatical proprieties (their origin and grounds being lost 
sight of), and to extend many corruptions already manifesting themselves 
in the literary diction. Its main characteristic, however, continued to be 
such an intermixing of the previously distinct dialects (Lobeck, Pathol. 
Ρ. 9.), that each province retained its own local variety as the basis of the 
provincial style ---- the Alexandrian retaining a predominance of Atticisms 
and Doricisms. 

We shall now endeavor to portray more minutely the later elements, 


_ both lexical and grammatical — of which the former are the more obvious 


—of the Hellenistic Greek which took its rise from the dialect spoken in 
Egypt, particularly in Alexandria (dialectus Alexandrina). “Τὰ doing 


Greek element. Moreover, that no profound Greek scholarship can be ascribed even 
to the Apostle Paul (see, among others, Pfochen, p. 178) is now generally admitted. 
He undoubtedly possessed a greater mastery of Greek than such of the sacred writers 
as were natives of Palestine. This, however, he might easily attain in Asia Minor, 
and by his considerable intercourse with native Greeks, some of whom were persons of 
learning and distinction. Aster, in the Stud. und Krit. 1854. 2 (ob P. seine Sprache 
an der des Demosth. gebildet habe) brings together Demosthenic words and phrases, 
of nearly all of which it must be said that either Paul might have learned them from 
the spoken language of the educated, or that they are unlike the diction of the Attic 
orator. Copious command of Greek in the case of men who associated so much with 
Greeks does not suffice to prove them students of Greek literature. 

1 A comparison of portions of the earlier books of the Antiquities with the corres- 
ponding portions of the Septuagint, proves particularly that the style of Josephus is 
not to be put on a level with that of the Septuagint, or even of the N. T., and renders 
obvious the difference between a Jewish and a Greek narrative style. Cf. besides, 
Schleiermacher, Herm. S. 63. 

2 Hence a “complete view of the language of common life, 
Herm. S. 59, would fain see, can never be given. 

8 On this (wept τῆς ᾿Αλεξανδρέων διαλέκτου) the grammarians Jrenacus (Pacatus) and 
Demetrius Ixion had written special works, which are now lost. See Sturz, dial. maced. 
et alex. p. 24, not. 4, cf. p.19sq. As extant specimens of this dialect, besides the well- 
known Rosetta inscription, are to be considered: Papyri graeci reg. Taurin. musei 
aegyptii ed. et illustr. a A. Peyron. Turin, 1827. 2 Vol. 4to., and the same author’s 
Illustrazione di due papiri graeco-egizi dell’ imper. museo di Vienna, in the Memorie 
dell’ academ. di Torino, Tom. 33, p. 151 sqq. of the histor. class ; Description of the 
Greek Papyri in the British Museum, Lond. 1839. 4to. Tom. 1; J. A. Letronne, Recueil 
des inscriptions grecques et latines de "Egypte, etc. Paris, 1842 and 1848, 2 Tom. 4to. 


” which Schleiermacher, 


92. § 2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. 

this, we shall constantly avail ourselves of the researches of Sturz, Planck, 
85 Lobeck,! Boissonade, and others. For the passages they quote in proof 

(chiefly from the writers of the κοινή, Polybius, Plutarch, Strabo, lian, 

Artemidorus, Appian, Heliodorus, Sext. Empiricus, Arrian, etc.)? the 

reader must be referred to the works of these critics themselves. What 

appears to have belonged exclusively to the popular spoken language, and 
92 is not to be found in any profane Greek author, we shall mark with an 
ith ed. asterisk.® 


91 1. Lexican Prcuriarities: a. The later dialect comprised words 
6th el. and forms from all the Greek dialects, without distinction ; as, for instance, 
JSrom the’ Attic : ὕαλος (Lob. 809), ὃ σκότος, ἀετός (Herm. Praef. ad Soph. 
Ai. p.19), φιάλη, ἀλήθειν (Lob. 151), πρύμνα (Lob. 331), ἵλεως ; from the 
Dorie: πιάζω (πιέζω), κλέβανος (Lob. 179), ἡ λιμός, ποία (grass, instead of 
ποίη or πόα), BeuBpavas, which Zonaras quotes from 2 Tim. iy. 18, where 
however all our Codd. give peuBp., see Sturz, Zonarae glossae sacrae. 
Grimmae, 1820. 4to. P. ΤΙ. p. 16; from the Ionic: γογγύζω (Lob. 358), 
ῥήσσω, πρηνής (yet already used in Aristot., see Lob. 431), βαθμός (Lob. 
324), σκορπίζειν (Lob. 218), ἄρσην (Bttm. I. 5. 84, ef. Fr. Rom. I. 78). 
Tonic and Dorie is (εἱλίσσειν Rev. vi. 14 var.; cf. Mtth. I. 69) φύω in an 
intransitive sense (EHeb. xii. 15, cf. Babr..64.). Grammarians note as 
Macedonic, παρεμβολή camp (Lob. 377, cf. Schwarz, Soloec. ap. 66), ῥύμη 
street ; as of Oyrenaie origin, βουνός hill (Lob. 355 sqq.) ; as Syracusan, 
the imperative εἰπόν (Fritzsche, ad Mr. p. 515). 
b. The later dialect attached new significations to words already existing 
in the ancient language: παρακαλεῖν and épwrav* entreat, παιδεύειν chastise, 


1 Yet see even Olear. de stylo, p. 279 sqq. 

2 In studying the peculiarities of later Greek, the church Fathers and the books of 
Graeco-Roman law have hitherto been turned to searcely any account. ‘To the latter 
frequent reference will be made in the course of this treatise. How far the N. T. diction, 
through the influence of the church, affected the later Byzantine Greek, is reserved for 
separate inquiry. The Pseudepigrapha of the O.T. and the Apocrypha of the N. T., 
that is certain portions of them, are now available more completely, and in a better 
text; the latter through the labors of Τὰ The style of these clumsy compositions, 
though not by any means uniform, is on the whole so poor that the N. T. diction seems 
like classic Greek in comparison. Cf. besides, Td/: de evangel. apocryph. origine et 
usu, in the Verhandelingen uitgeven door het Haagsche Genootschap, etc. 12 Thl. 
1851. 8vo. 

3 The Greek grammarians, particularly Thomas Mag. (the latest edition by Ritschl, 
Halle, 1832. 8vo.), specify as common Greek much that is not unknown even to standard 
Attic (see e.g. θεμέλιος, Th. M. p. 437, and épevyGuai, p. 363), and even fall sometimes 
into gross mistakes. Cf. Oudendorp, ad Thom. M. p. 903. Much that, after Alexander 
the Great, forced its way into the written language, undoubtedly was current before in 
the popular speech (as, perhaps, στρηνιᾶν, which first appears in the poets of the New 
Comedy). Besides, the N. T. writers frequently employ forms and words preferred by 
the Atticists, instead of those characterized as common Greek ; e.g. χρηστότης, Thom. 
M. p.921, ἡ (not 6) λαῖλαψ, Thom. M. 864. 


§2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. 23 


εὐχαριστεῖν thank (Lob. 18), dvaxhivew, ἀναπίπτειν, ἀνακεῖσθαι, to recline at 
table (Lob. 216), ἀποκριθῆναι answer (Lob. 108), ἀντιλέγειν oppose, ἀπο- 36 
τάσσεσθαι valere jubere, renuntiare (Lob. 23 sq.), συγκρίνειν compare (Lob. 
278), δαίμων, δαιμόνιον, evil spirit, ξύλον (living) tree (Passow, sub verb.), 
διαπονεῖσθαι aegre ferre*, στέγειν hold off; endure, σεβάζεσθαι revere (equiv- 
alent to σέβεσθαι, Fr. Rom. I. 74), συνίστημι prove, establish (Fr. Rom. I. 
159), χρηματίζειν be called (Fr. Rom. Il. 9), φθάνειν come, arrive (Fr. 
Rom. 11. 356 sq.), κεφαλίς volume (roll) of a book (Bleek on Heb. x. 7), 
εὐσχήμων a respectable, prominent, man (Lob. 333), ψωμίζειν and xopralew 
(fodder) feed, nourish*? ὀψώνιον wages (Sturz, 187), ὀψάριον fish, ἐρεύγε- 
σθαι elogui (Lob. 63 sq.), ἐπιστέλλειν write a letter (ἐπιστολή), περισπᾶσθαι 23 
negotiis distraht (Lob. 415), πτῶμα corpse (Lob. 375), γεννήματα fruges Tih ed 
(Lob. 286), σχολή school (Lob. 401), Ovpeds large (door-shaped) shield 
(Lob. 366), δῶμα house-top, λοιβή offering (Babr. 23, 5), ῥύμη street 
(Lob. 404 sq.), παῤῥησία assurance, confidence, λαλιά speech (dialect), 
λαμπάς lamp, καταστολή long robe*, νυνί now (in Attic, this instant) Fr. 
Rom. I. 182, στάμνος, which in the classics denotes a vessel for holding 22 
liquids, was used to signify also a vessel for dry articles, Babr. 108, 18. θὲ εἰ 
A special peculiarity was to give neuter verbs the transitive or causative 
signification ;° as, μαθητεύειν (Matt. xxviii. 19), θριαμβεύειν (2 Cor. ii. 14? 
yet see Mey.), in the Sept. even ζῆν, βασιλεύειν, and many others; cf. 
especially, Psalm xli. 3; exviii. 50; cxxxviii. 7, etc., cf. § 32,1. see Lydius 
de re mil. 6. 3, esp. Lob. Soph. Ai. p. 882 sqq. Lastly, in the case of 
μέθυσος, usage at least so far changed that the word, previously confined 
to females, was applied to both sexes (Lob. 151 sq.; Schiifer, ind. ad sop. 
p- 144). 
ο. Words and forms which in classical Greek were seldom used, or only 
by poets and in the more elevated kinds of style, became ordinary and 
favorite, and were employed even in common prose; such as, αὐθεντεῖν to 
lord it (Lob. 120), μεσονύκτιον (Thom. M. 609; Lob. 53), ἀλάλητος (Ὁ), 
θεοστυγής (Pollux 1, 21), ἔσθησις (Th. M. 370), ἀλέκτωρ (ἀλεκτρυών, Lob. 
229), βρέχειν trrigare (Lob. 291), ἔσθω (for ἐσθίω) Bttm. I. 185. To ᾿ 


1 That is, as its inherent signification ; for, from the context, the word means this in 
the Iliad, 8, 166, as also in Dinarch. adv. Demosthen. § 30, p. 155, Bekk., a passage 
quoted by recent scholars. Even the Byzantines for precision add κακός to δαίμων, 
Agath. 114, 4. 

2 This extended meaning might be considered also as a Hebraism; ψωμίζειν was 
commonly used as quite equivalent to ῬΛΘΝΓῚ (cf. Grimm on Wisd. xvi. 20), like χορτά- 
(ew, which in Greek authors is not applied to persons. (In opposition to Pfochen, see 
Solanus in Rhenferd, p. 297.) It is uncertain whether δεκαδύο for δώδεκα belongs to the 
later popular Greek, or was first formed by the LXX. The first seems to me the more 
probable, for to mvs ong δώδεκα corresponds more exactly than δεκαδύο. 

8 Transitive verbs are more convenient in construction than intransitive. Later 
Greek even employed the construction προςτάττειν τινά (Acta apocr. p- 172) ; just as in 
German etwas widersprechen is the more familiar phrase ; in the language of trade we 
hear, das Riib6l ist gefragt. 


24 §2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. 


the same head Eichhorn (Einl. ins N. Τὶ IV. 127) refers the phrase θέσθαι 
τι ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ, employed it is said in solemn style by the poets particularly 
the tragedians, since it occurs in the N. T. in the plainest prose. But the 

387 Homeric phrase ἐν φρεσὶ θέσθαι is only similar, not identical. The ex- 
pression συντηρεῖν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ, cited by the same author as a solemn 
formula, is used also in the N.T. as emphatic. Κοράσιον, on the other 
hand, is to be regarded as an example of a word which, dropping its sec- 
ondary import, was adopted into the literary style from the colloquial 
(Lob. 74), ef. Germ. méddel. 

d. Many words which had long been in use received another form or 
pronunciation, which generally supplanted its predecessor; such as, perot- 
κεσία (μετοικίαν, ἱκεσία (ixereia, Lob.d04), ἀνάθεμα (ἀνάθημα, Schif. Plutarch. 
V. p. 11), ἀνάστεμα, γενέσια (γενέθλια, Lob. 104), γλωσσόκομον (γλωσσο- 
κομεῖον, Lob. 98 54.), ἔκπαλαι (πάλαι, Lob. 4 54.), ἐχθές (χθές), ἐξάπινα 

24 (ἐξαπίνης), αἴτημα (αἴτησις), ψεῦσμα (ψεῦδος, Sallier ad Th. M. 927), ἀπάν- 
ἢ οἱ. τήσις (ἀπάντημα), ἥγησις (ἡγεμονία), λυχνία (λυχνίον, Lob. 314), νῖκος (νίκη, 
Lob. 647), οἰκοδομή (οἰκοδόμησις, Lob. 490), ὀνειδισμός, Lob. 512 (ὄνειδος, 
ὀνείδισμα, Her. 2, 133), ὀπτασία (ὄψις), ἣ ὁρκωμοσία (τὰ ὁρκωμόσια), μισθα- 
ποδοσία (μισθοδοσία), συγκυρία (συγκύρησις), ἀποστασία (ἀπόστασις, Lob. 
528), νουθεσία (νουθέτησις, Lob. 512), ἀπαρτισμός (ἀπάρτισις), μελίσσιος 
(μελίσσειος), ποταπός (ποδαπός, Lob. 56), βασίλισσα (βασίλεια).} μοιχαλίς 
(μοιχάς Lob. 452), μονόφθαλμος (ἑτερόφθαλμος, Lob. 136), καμμύειν (κατα- 
μύειν, Sturz, p. 123), ὄψιμος (ὄψιος, Lob. 52), ὁ πλησίον (6 πέλας), προςήλυτος 
(ἔπηλυς, Valcken. ad Ammon. p. 82), φυσιοῦσθαι (φυσᾶν) to be puffed up 
(trop. Babr. 114), ἀτενίζειν since Polybius for ἀτενίζεσθαι (Passow), ἐκχύνειν 
(ἐκχέειν, Lob. 726), στήκω (from ἕστηκα stand, Bttm. II. 36), ἀργός, ἡ, ov 
ih ef, (28 an adject. of three terminations, Lob. 105), πειθός, νοσσοί, νοσσιά 
(νεοσσοί, νεοσσιά, Thom. M. 626; Lob. 206 f.), πετάομαι {(πέτομαι, Lob. 581), 
ἀπελπίζειν (ἀπογινώσκειν), ἐξυπνίζειν (ἀφυπνίζειν, Lob. 224), ῥαντίζειν (ῥαίνειν), 
δεκατοῦν (δεκατεύειν), ἀροτριᾶν (ἀροῦν, Lob. 254 54.), ByBdrapidiov* (βιβλίδιον, 
βιβλιδάριον), ψιχίον (ψίξ), ταμεῖον (ταμιεῖον) Lob. 498, καταποντίζειν (κατα- 
ποντοῦν, Lob. 361), παραφρονία (παραφροσύνη) ", πτύον (πτέον, Lob. 321), 
ψιθυριστής (for ψιθυρός) Thom. M. 927, ὠτάριον (as most of the diminutives 

in -αριον, e.g. παιδάριον, ὀνάριον, Fr. Mr. p. 638). Purely Alexandrian 
(LXX.) are ἀκρόβυστος and ἀκροβυστία, Fr. Rom. I. 136; verbal forms 

in ὦ pure, instead of in μι, e.g. ὀμνύω for ὄμνυμι, Thom. M. 648. Cf. also 
ξυράω for Evpéw, Thom. M. 642; Phot. Lex. 813 (Lob. 205, and ad Soph. 
Aiac. p. 181), pres. βαρέω (βαρύνω) Thom. M. p. 142, σαροῦν for caipew 
Lob. 83, χολᾶν (χολοῦσθαι), ἐξὸν εἶναι for ἐξεῖναι (Foertsch, de locis Lysiae, 

p- 60sq.). Active forms were adopted instead of the middle or deponent 
verbs usual in the earlier language ; as, φρυάσσειν Act. iv. 25, from Ps. 11.» 
ἀγαλλιᾶν Luke i. 47, εὐαγγελίζειν Lob. 269. Compound verbs, in which 


1 Similar to which is ἱέρισσα from ἱερεύς, which is found in Papyr. Taurin. 9,14. Cf 
Sturz, p. 178. 


§2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. 95 


the preposition did not add to the meaning, were preferred to the less im- 
posing and less sonorous simple forms.’ Further, as even many compound 
verbs did not seem expressive enough, numerous double compounds made 
their appearance (Siebelis, Pr. de verb. compos. quae quatuor partibus 
constant. Budiss. 1832. 4to.). For members of the human body, however, 
forms originally diminutive became sometimes the current forms in col- 
loquial speech; as, driv, cf. Fischer, proluss. p. 10 sqq.; Lob. 211 sq., 
φορτίον" Lastly, many substantives received a different gender and in 
part a corresponding change of termination; see § 8 note, and § 9 note 2. 

e. Entirely new words and phrases* were constructed, mainly by 
composition and for the most part to meet some sensible want; as, ἀλλο- 


᾿ τριοεπίσκοπος , ἀνθρωπάρεσκος (Lob. 621), ὁλόκληρος, ἀγενεαλόγητος ἢ, aipa- 


τεκχυσίαΣ, δικαιοκρισία, σιτομέτριον, νυχθήμερον (Sturz, 186), πληροφορία 
(Theophan. 132), καλοποιεῖν (Lob. 199 544.); αἰχμαλωτίζειν and αἰχμαλωτεύειν 
(for αἰχμάλωτον ποιεῖν, Thom. M. p. 23; Lob. 442), μεσιτεύειν, γυμνητεύειν, 
ἀγαθοποιεῖν (ἀγαθοεργεῖν) for ἀγαθὸν ποιεῖν (Lob. 290), ἀγαλλίασις, ὁροθεσία, 
dvridutpov*, ἐκμυκτηρίζεινξ, ἀλεκτοροφωνία (Lob. 229), ἀποκεφαλίζειν (Lob. 
841), ἀνταποκρίνεσθαι (sop. 172 de Fur.), ἐξουθενεῖν (Lob. 182; Schiif. 
ind. Aisop. p. 135), ἐκκακεῖν" (the literary Greek knows only ἐγκακεῖν, see 
my Comment. ad Gal. p. 134, and Mey. on 2 Cor. iv. 1), εὐδοκεῖν (Sturz, 
p- 168; Fr. Rom. II. 370 sq.), doutLew*, ἀγαθουργεῖν, ἀγαθωσύνη, διασκορ- 
πίζειν (Lob. 218), στρηνιᾶν (τρυφᾶν, Lob. 381), ἐγκρατεύομαιδ' (Lob. 442), 
οἰκοδεσπότης, οἰκοδεσποτεῖν (Lob. 373), λιθοβολεῖν, προςφάγιον (ὄψον, Sturz, 
191), λογία, κράββατος (σκίμπους, Lob. 63; Sturz, 175 sq.), πεποίθησις 
(Lob. 295), σπῖλος (κηλίς, Lob. 28), μάμμη (τήθη, Lob. 133 sq.), padis 
(βελόνη, Lob. 90), ἀγριέλαιος (κότινος, Moeris, p. 68), dyvorns*, ἁγιότης", 
ἐπενδύτης, ἐκτενῶς and ἐκτένεια (Lob. 311), ἀπαράβατος (Lob. 313). 

It belongs alike to d. and e. to remark that the later Greek especially 
abounded : — in substantives in pa, e.g. κατάλυμα, ἀνταπόδομα, κατόρθωμα, 
ῥάπισμα, γέννημα, ἔκτρωμα (Lob. 209), βάπτισμα, ἔνταλμα, ἱεροσύλημα (see 
Pasor, Gramm. N.T. pp.571-574) :--ἰη substantives compounded with συν, 
6.5. συμμαθητής, συμπολίτης (Lob. 471) ;— in adjectives in wos, e.g. ὀρθρινός 


1 That, on the other hand, simple verbs were in later Greek preferred to the corres- 
ponding compound, Τὰ (Stud. und Krit. 1842. 5. 505) tries to prove from the expres- 
sion βουλὴν τιθέναι, for which the earlier Greeks had used βουλὴν προτιθέναι. But 
these phrases may have differed in meaning, see Raphel on Acts xxvii. 12. With 
greater probability might be adduced here the verbs (mentioned under e.) δειγματίζειν 
and θεατρίζειν, for which in the written language we find only παραδειγματίζειν and 
ἐκθεατρίζειν ; so also taptapoty for καταταρταροῦν. In the same way the Prussian official 
style employs Fithrung for Auffiihrung. : 

2 It may be mentioned here also, that abbreviated forms of proper names, which 
probably were current earlier in popular speech, made their way into the written lan- 
guage ; as, ᾿Αλεξᾶς, Σπανία (for Ἱσπανία), ete. The derivatives of δέχεσθαι were but 
slightly altered ; as, πανδοχεύς, ξενοδοχεύς, for πανδοκεύς, etc., Lob. 307. 

8 Many such words have been collected from the Fathers by Suicer in his sacrae 
observatt. (Tigur. 1665, 4to.) p. 311 sqq. 

4 


38 


25 
Τὰ ed, 


94 
6th 


39 


26 §2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. 


(Sturz, p. 186), πρωϊνός, καθημερινός, ὀστράκινος, δερμάτινος (Lob. 51 sq.) s— 
in verbs in ow, ἐζω, αζω, e.g. ἀγακαινόω, δυναμόω, ἀφυπνόω, δολιόω, ἐξουδενόω, 
σθενόω, ὀρθρίζωξ, deryparilw*, θεατρὶ ὦ, prraxilu™, ἱματίζω, ἀκουτίζω, πελεκίζω 
(Lob. 341), αἱρετίζω (Babr. f. 61; Boisson. anecd. II. 818), σινιάζω. Τὸ 
these may be added also the presents formed from preterites στήκω (see 
above), ypyyop® Lob. 118 sq. Cf. also such adverbs as πάντοτε (διαπαντός, 
ἑκάστοτε), παιδιόθεν (ἐκ παιδίου, Lob. 93), καθώς (Sturz, p. 74), πανοικί 
(πανοικίᾳ, πανοικησίᾳ, Lob. 515), see Sturz, 187 sq.' Ἔσχάτως ἔχειν is ἃ 


26 later phrase (for κακῶς, πονηρῶς ἔχειν) Lob. 389; and καλοποιεῖν (Ὁ above) 
ith el. was used for the more ancient phrase καλῶς ποιεῖν. 


25 
θὲ} ol 


It cannot be denied that the preceding list contains many words formed, 
agreeably to the prevailing analogy of the time, by the Greek-speaking 
Jews, or even by the N. T. writers themselves (especially Paul, Luke, and 
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews; cf. Origen. orat. ὃ 27); ef. 
particularly ὀρθρίζειν (Θ 5.911), λιθοβολεῖν, αἱματεκχυσία, σκληροκαρδία, σκλη- 
ροτράχηλος, ἀγαθοεργεῖν, ὀρθοποδεῖν, ὀρθοτομεῖν, μοσχοποιεῖν, μεγαλωσύνη, τα- 
πεινοφροσύνη; παραβάτης, πατριάρχης, ἀγενεαλόγητος, ὑποπόδιον (Sturz, 199), 
χρυσοδακτύλιοςς. However, the circumstance that no traces of these words 


- are to be found in the Greek writers still extant of the first centuries after 


Christ (but these have not yet been fully explored)? must not be regarded 
as altogether decisive. Many of the words in question may have been 
already current in the popular speech of the Greeks. But words denoting 
Jewish institutions, or heathenism as idolatry, originated of course among 
the Greek-speaking Jews themselves; such as, σκηνοπηγία, εἰδωλόθυτον, 
εἰδωλολατρεία. Lastly, many words assumed among the Jews a peculiar 
meaning resting on special Jewish modes of thought; as, ἐπιστρέφεσθαι, 
ἐπιστροφή, absolutely used, to convert, conversion, προφήλυτος, πεντεκοστή 
Whitsuntide, κόσμος (in a figurative sense), φυλακτήριον, ἐπιγαμβρεύειν of 
the levirate marriage. In reference to Christian apostolic words and 
forms (such as βάπτισμα) see ὃ 3 end, p. 35. 


2. GRAMMATICAL PrecuLiaRiTies: These are confined mostly to tn- 
flections of nouns and verbs, which were either unknown in the earlier 
language, or not used in certain words, or at least foreign to the literary 
Attic: for in this respect also the intermixture of dialects previously 
distinct became manifest. Moreover, the use of the Dual became rare. 


1 Popular Greek naturally adopted single foreign words (appellatives), with slight 
alterations, from the languages in use in the different provinces along with the Greek. 
On this, however, we cannot dwell in an inquiryso general as the above. With regard 
to the Egyptian element in the Septuagint and elsewhere, see Sturz, dialect. Alex. 
Ῥ. 84 544ᾳ. Also Latin and Persian words and expressions have been pointed out in the 
N. T.; cf. Olear. de stylo N. T. p. 366 sq. 368sqq.; Georgi, Hierocrit. I. p. 247 564. 
and the whole of II. (de latinismis N. T.). Cf. Dresig, de N. T. gr. latinismis merito 
et falso suspectis. Lips. 1726, 4to., and Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik, S. 62 f. 

2 Most of this description appear subsequently in the Byzantine authors, who abound 
in double compounds and lengthened forms of words. What had fallen into disuse 
was eagerly restored and revived. 


πεν, .. 


οὐ ΤῸ ΜΝ a  ν- 


Se ee, | εσι 


PALES FTES: 


§ 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. oT 


The later Greek has few syntactical peculiarities. Certain verbs, for 


instance, are construed with cases different from those they formerly used 40 


‘to govern (ὃ 31, 1. cf. Boissonade, anecd. III. 136,154); conjunctions which 
previously took only the Subjunct. or Optat. are used with the Indic.; the 
use of the Optat., particularly in the oratio obliqua, decreases sensibly ; 
the use of the future participle after verbs of going, sending, etc., recedes 
before that of the present (or the infinitive) ; Active verbs with ἑαυτόν 
begin to be substituted for Middle, when unemphatic. Also, in general, 
more forcible expressions lose their emphasis. On the other hand, ad- 
ditional expressiveness is aimed at even by grammatical forms, cf. μειζότερος, 
iva instead of the Infinitive, ete. But the later varieties of inflection will 
most appropriately find place in § 4. 

Later popular Greek had, beyond doubt, different peculiarities in differ- 
ent provinces. Critics, accordingly, have professed to discover Cilicisms 
in the style of Paul (Hieron. ad Algasiam quaest. 10. Tom. IV. ed. Marti- 
anay, p. 204). The four examples, however, which this Father adduces 
are not conclusive (Michaelis, Einl. ins N. T. 1 Thi. S. 161) ; and as we 
know nothing respecting the provincialisms of Cilicia (see, however, Sturz, 
Dial. Alex. p. 62), it is better at present to dismiss the investigation alto- 
gether, than to rest it on empty conjectures. Cf. B. Stolberg, de Cilicismis 
a Paulo usurpatis, in his tr. de soloecismis N. Τὶ p. 91 sqq. 


§ 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF THE N. T. DICTION. 


This popular variety of Greek, however, was not spoken and 
written by the Jews without foreign admixture. They not only 
imparted to their Greek style the general complexion of their 
mother tongue, which consists in vividness and circumstantiality 
as well as uniformity of expression, but also introduced particular 
Jewish turns of expression. Yet both these peculiarities are more 
apparent in their translations directly from Hebrew, than in their 
original composition in Greek.! 

Lexical Hebraisms (and Aramaisms) are more numerous than 
grammatical; and consist partly in the extension of the significa- 
tion of words, partly in the imitation of entire phrases, and partly 
also in the analogous formation of new words to express corres- 
ponding Hebrew terms. Thus originated a Jewish-Greek, which 
native Greeks did not entirely understand,? and which they even 
sometimes turned into ridicule. 


1 Herein lies an argument, which has received little attention, why the text of the 
N. T. is not to be regarded as a translation from the Aramaic, and that too, in a great 
measure, clumsily executed. 


2 Though the opinion of L. de Dieu (praefat. ad grammat. orient.) : facilius Euro- 


27 
Tth ed. 


26 
6th ed, 


41 


28 


ΤᾺ ed. 


27 


Gth ed. 


42 


28 88. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. 


All the nations which after the death of Alexander continued under 
Graeco-Macedonian rule and which gradually adopted the Greek language 
of their conquerors even in common life, particularly the Syrians and - 
Hebrews, spoke Greek less purely than native Greeks, and imparted to 
it more or less the impress of their mother tongue (Salmas. de lingua 
Hellen. p. 121, cf. Joseph. antt. 20,9).' As the Greek-speaking Jews are 
usually denominated Hellenists, this Oriental variety of Greek, known to 
us only in the writings of Jews, has not improperly obtained the name 
of the Hellenistic idiom; see Buttm. I. 5. 6.2 Accordingly, the diction 
of the LXX. and of the N. T. (of the Pseudepigrapha of the Ὁ, T. and 
the Apocrypha of the N. T.) has been especially called Hellenistic ; yet it 
was not Drusius (ad Act. vi. 6), but Scaliger (animad. in Euseb. p. 134), 
who first employed this term. 

The Hebraisms of the N. T.— for these only, and not the oriental cast 
of the periods and arrangement of words, were usually attended to— have 
been collected frequently and thoroughly; in particular by Vorst, Leusden 
(in his Philol. hebr., from which the dissertatio de dialectis N. T. sing. 
de ejus hebraismis was separately printed by J. F. Fischer, Lips. 1754, 


paeis foret Platonis Aristotelisque elegantiam imitari, quam Platoni Aristotelive N. T. 
nobis interpretari, is decidedly an exaggeration. Still, the circumstance mentioned 
above may in general explain the fact that learned Greek transcribers, or possessors of 
MSS. of the N. T., often took the liberty of making corrections in order to bring the 
diction nearer to Grecian elegance ; see Hug, Einl. ins N. T. I. S. 129. 

1 Jt is well known that Greek subsequently became Latinized, also, when the Romans 
began to write in that language. The Latin coloring, however, is not very marked 
before the Byzantine literature, even in Greek translations from Latin authors, such as 
that of Eutropius by Paeanius, of Cicero’s Cat. Maj. and Somn. Scip. by Theodorus 
(published by Gotz. Niirnb. 1801. 8vo.). This was partly owingeto the much closer 
affinity between Greek and Latin than between Hebrew and Greek, and partly because 
these authors had made Greek a special study. 

2 This appellation ought to be resumed as a technical term, it is so thoroughly appro- 
priate. For ἑλληνιστής in the N.T. (Acts vi. 1) denotes a Greek-speaking Jew; (for 
compilations respecting ἑλληνίζειν rather than ἑλληνιστής, see Wetstein 11. p. 490; Lob. 
Ρ. 379 sq.). The notion of Salmasius, that in the N. T. Hellenist means a Greek prose- 
lyte to Judaism, is a rash conclusion from Acts vi. 5, and Eichstddt (ad Mori acroas. 
herm. I. p. 227) should not have adopted it. Moreover, the controversy between Dn. 
Heinsius (exercit. de lingua hellenist. L. B. 1643. 8vo.), and Sa/masius (hellenistica 
L. B. 1643. 8vo.; funus linguae hellen. ib. 1643. 8vo.; ossilegium linguae hellen. ib. 
1643. 8vo.), on the appellation dialectus hellenistica, related not merely to the word Hel- 
lenistic, but still more to the term dialectus, for which Salmasius wished to substitute 
character or stylus idioticus (de Hellenist. p. 250), compare also Tittmann, Synonym. I. p. 
259sq. Yet the term dialect (διάλεκτος τοπική) might be allowable to denote, particu- 
larly in accordance with the very extensive meaning of the verb διαλέγεσθαι (see, e.g. 
Strabo 8, 514), that variety of Greek spoken by Hellenistic Jews. Other dissertations 
on the designation dialect. hellenist. see in Walch, bib. theol. IV. p. 278sq. and Fabric. 
biblioth. graec. ed. Harles. IV. p. 893sq. Thiersch and Rost have begun to call the 
language of the Greek Bible the ecclesiastical dialect. This, however, is too narrow for 
the subject discussed above, and the word dialect is inappropriate. 





§ 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. 99 


1792, 8vo.), and Olearius (de Stylo N. T. p. 232 sqq.), cf. also Hartmann, 
linguist. Einl. in das Stud. ἃ. Α. T. S. 382 ff. Anm. Still, this matter ought 
to have been executed with more critical precision.!_ Nearly all who have 
written on this subject hitherto, are chargeable, more or less, with the 
following errors : 

a. They did not give sufficient attention to the Aramaic elements in the 
diction of the N. T.2 In the time of Christ, as all know, the popular speech 


29 


of the Jews in Palestine was not the old Hebrew, but Syro-Chaldaic ; ‘th ed 


accordingly, many of the most current expressions of common life * must 
have been introduced into Jewish-Greek from this dialect. Among the 


28 


older writers Olearius has a special section de Chaldaeo-Syriasmis N. T. bth ed 


p- 345 sqq. (cf. Georgi, Hierocrit. I. p. 187 sqq.). More recently, a great 
deal relating to this subject has been collected by Boysen (krit. Erliuter- 
ungen des Grundtextes ἃ. N. T. aus der syrischen Uebersetzung. Qued- 
linb. 1761, 8vo., 3 Stiicke), Agrell (oratio de dictione N. T. Wexion. 1798, 
and otiola Syriaca. Lund. 1816, 4to. pp. 53-58), and Hartmann (as above, 
382 ff). Already had several earlier commentators occasionally directed 
attention to Aramaisms; see Michaelis, Einleit. ins N. T. 1 Thi. S. 138 ff. ; 
Fischer ad Leusden, p. 140; Bertholdt’s Einleit. 1 ΤῊ]. S. 158. — Under 
this head come also the (few) Rabbinisms (see Olear. 1. ο. p. 360 sqq. ; 
Georgi l.c. p. 221 sqq.), for the elucidation of which much may still be 
derived from Schéttgen, Hor. Hebr. They are mostly terms that may 
have been used in the Rabbinical schools as early as the time of Christ. 
b. They overlooked almost entirely the difference in style of the 
several writers; so that according to their collections all the books of the 
N.T. appear to abound in Hebraisms to the same extent. But in this 
particular no little dissimilarity exists, and Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, 
James, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews ought by no means 
to be thrown together promiscuously.* Those learned collectors failed also 


1 A new and complete treatise on the Hebraisms of the N. T., elaborated critically and 
on rational principles, is certainly needed. Meanwhile, the commencement recently 
made (1). Ε΄. δ΄. Bockel, de hebraismis N. T. Spec. 1. Lips. 1840, 8vo.) deserves to be 
gratefully recognized. 

2 Many of the peculiarities pointed out by the Hebraists might with equal propriety be 
called either Hebraisms or Syriasms: e.g. εἷς for an indefinite article, and the frequent use 
of participles with εἶναι for a finite verb. It is preferable, however, to regard these and 
the like as Aramaisms, since they are far more common and more distinctly established 
in the Aramaic, and occur almost exclusively in those later Hebrew writings the style 
of which approaches the Aramaic. This refers principally to the diction of the N.T., 
for the Septuagint exhibits but few Aramaisms. Cf. Olear. p. 308; Gesen. Com. zu 
Jes. I. 63. 

8 To these the Aramaisms of the N. T. are, essentially, confined. For the religious 
expressions are to be connected (through the medium of the Sept. in the case of the 
majority of extra-Palestinean Jews) with the Ancient Hebrew, the sacred language. To 


° 4 
the same class also belongs θάνατος, pestilence, Rev. vi. 8; xviii. 8 (ania ᾽ |2a%) > 
ef. Ewald, Com. in Apoc. p. 122. 

* Even in one and the same writer we find a want of uniformity. Thus Luke in his 


43 


80 § 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. 


to show the relation between the diction of the N.T. and that of the 
Septuagint ; though, great as the resemblance is, considerable dissimilarity 
exists, and, speaking generally, the style of the LXX. as a direct and in 
part a literal translation of the Hebrew text is more Hebraistic than that 
of the N. T. 

ce. They included in their list of Hebraisms many expressions which are 
not unknown to the Greek prose writers, or are the common property of 
many languages; and, in general, they were guided by no distinct notion 


80 of what constitutes a Hebraism; see Tittmann, de causis contortar. inter- 
ith dl. pretatt. N. T. p. 18 sq. (Synonym. I. p. 269 544.) ; de Wette in the A. L. Z. 


29 


1816. N. 39. S. 306. 

They made a threefold use of the term Hebraism, viz. to designate 

1. Such words, phrases, and constructions, as are peculiar to the Hebrew 
(Aramaean) tongue, and to which there is nothing corresponding in Greek 
prose ; 6.5. σπλαγχνίζεσθαι, ὀφειλήματα ἀφιέναι, rposwrov λαμβάνειν, οἰκοδο- 
μεῖν (in ἃ figurative sense), πλατύνειν τὴν καρδίαν, πορεύεσθαι ὀπίσω, οὐ. .... 
πᾶς (for οὐδείς), ἐξομολογεῖσθαί τινι and ἔν τινι, ete. 

2. Such words. ete. as, though occasionally occurring in Greek authors, 
are imitated by the writers of the N. T. directly from their native tongue ; 
6.5. σπέρμα for proles (Schwarz, Comm. p. 1235) hebr. 271; ἀνάγκη distress, 
calamity (cf. D. Sic. 4, 43; Schwarz, as above, p. 81) hebr. Pix, mPAx, 
ἜΣ, TS; ἐρωτᾶν request (as 5x denotes both request and interrogate, cf. 


‘thel. the Latin rogare) Babr. 97,3; Apollon. synt. p. 289; εἰς ἀπάντησιν (Ὁ. 


44 


Sic. 8, 59; Polyb. 5, 26, 8) cf. mxap>; πέρατα τῆς γῆς (Thue. 1, 69 ; Xen. 
Ages. 9,4; Dio Chr. 62. 587) cf. yas "ODN; χεῖλος for ittus (Her. 1,191; 
Strabo, and others) ef. nav; στόμα of a sword (m8) cf., besides the Poets, 
Philostrat. her. 19, 4. So also the expression ἐνδύσασθαι Χριστόν (Tap- 
κύνιον ἐνδύσ. in Dion. H.), formed after ΤΡῚΣ 22>, etc. Cf. above, p. 17. 

3. Such words, ete., as are equally common in Greek and in Hebrew, 
and with regard to which, accordingly, there is room for doubt whether 
they are to be considered as portions of the popular Greek adopted by the 
Jews, or as currently employed by them through the influence of their 
native tongue ; e.g. φυλάσσειν νόμον, αἷμα caedes, ἀνήρ joined to an appel- 
lative (ἀνὴρ φονεύς), παῖς slave, μεγαλύνειν to praise, διώκειν to pursue, 
(cultivate) a virtue. To this head may be referred many of the grammat- 
ical illustrations contained in Haab’s grammar. 

4, Lastly, it cannot be denied that in a great many passages expositors 
introduced imaginary Ilebraisms (Aramaisms) ; as, Eph. v. 26, ἐν ῥήματι 
ἵνα "3X 25-52 (see Koppe); Matt. xxv. 23, χαρά convivium from Aram. 
Gospel, where he had to follow the evangelical paradosis, hebraizes more than in the 
Acts; the deterioration in the diction after the proem of the Gospel was long ago pointed 
out. The hymns, also, and the speeches, have more of a Hebrew coloring than the nar- 
ative part; cf. e.g. Luke i. 13-20, 42-55, 68-79. The linguistic relation of Luke to the 
Synoptics has not yet been systematically exhibited. 


88. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. 81 


mrt (see Fischer, ad Leusden dial. p. 52) or Hebr. ny, Esth. ix. 17, 
ete. (Eichhorn, Einl. ins N. T. I. 528) ; Matt. vi. 1, δικαιοσύνη alms from 
Chald. nprs; Matt. xxi. 13, λῃσταί traders (Fischer, ad Leusden dial. 
p- 48) ; and during the process many a misuse of the Sept. crept in (as 
Luke xi. 22, σκῦλα supellex, cf. Esth. iii. 13; Acts ii. 24, ὠδῖνες vincula, 
cf. Ps. xviii. 6). And to crown all, πέραν on this side, like “ap (?)! Cf 
also Fr. Rom. I. 367. 

It is obvious from what has been said that there are two kinds of He- 





| braisms in the N. T., one of which may be called perfect, and the other 
7 imperfect. By perfect Hebraisms we mean those words, phrases, and con- 
; structions which are strictly peculiar to the Hebrew (Aramaean) language, 
4 and therefore were transferred directly thence into the Hellenistic idiom, 
: (the diction of the N. T.).2. On the other hand, we call imperfect Webraisms 3} 
. all words, phrases, and constructions which, though to be found also in ‘hed 
7 Greek prose authors, are in all probability introduced directly from the 
4 Hebrew (Aramaean) : first, because the N. T. writers were more familiar 


᾿. with Aramaean than with Greek ; and secondly, because the phraseology 
in question was of more frequent occurrence in the former language than 
‘. in the latter. De Wette also perceived this distinction, and stated it as 
follows (as above, S. 319): “Certainly it makes an essential difference 
whether a form of speech is wholly foreign to the Greek, or, on the other 
1 hand, finds in Greek a point of contact to which it can attach itself.” 

This whole investigation must be carried farther back ; and first of all 
the origin of the so-called Hebraisms must be considered. In doing this, 
δὰ however, we cannot take the LX X.3 as our basis, since they, as translators, 30 
} furnish no sure testimony respecting that Greek diction of the Jews which δ οἰ. 
was formed independently and by oral intercourse. Nor can we immedi- 
ately use for this purpose the doctrinal parts of the N. T., as the religious 
phraseology of the Jews in Greek was naturally a close imitation of the 
Hebrew, and formed on the model of the Septuagint. But it is pre- 
eminently from the narrative style of the Apocrypha, the Gospels, and the 
Acts, that the influence of Hebrew on the Greek of Jews is to be most 
clearly determined. 

In the first place, it is plain that original writers, scarcely less than 45 
translators, unconsciously gave their Greek style the general impress of 
the Hebrew-Aramaic idiom, from the influence of which, as their mother 





1Tn the title of Kaiser’s dissertation de linguae aramaicae usu cet. Norimb. 1831. 8vo. 
the word abusu would be nearer the truth. 
2 Blessig’s definition is: Hebraismus est solius hebraei sermonis propria loquendi ratio, 
cujusmodi in graecam vel aliam linguam sine barbarismi suspicione transferre non licet. 
% The most important work that has yet appeared on the linguistic element of the 
Septuagint, is H. W. Jos. Thiersch, de Pentateuchi versione alex. libb. 3. Erlang. 1840. 
_ 8vo., from which I have obtained many acceptable illustrations for the later editions of 
this Grammar. But a complete exhibition of the diction of the Septuagint is very 
much needed. 





32 


82 § 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. 


tongue, they could not rid themselves without great attention and long 
practice. ‘This general impress consists, partly in explicitness (hence the 
use of prepositions with cases instead of cases alone, the latter construction 
implying more abstraction), and a predilection for cireumstantiality (φεύγειν 
ἀπὸ προςώπου τινός, ἐγράφη διὰ χειρός τ΄, πάντες ἀπὸ μικροῦ ἕως 
μεγάλου, καὶ ἔσται ---- καὶ ἐκχεῶ, and the like ; the frequent use of the pers. 
and dem. pron. particularly after the relative, the narrative expression καὶ 
ἐγένετο, etc.) ; partly in the simplicity, and even monotony, with which 
the Hebrew (agreeably to a co-ordinating, rather than subordinating prin- 
ciple) constructs periods, and links clause to clause. Hence the sparing 
use of conjunctions in Jewish-Greek (in which respect the classic authors 
display so copious a variety) ; hence the uniformity in the use of the tenses ; 
hence the absence of periodic combination of several subordinate clauses 


ith ed. into a single sentence, and, in connection with this, the scanty use of parti- 


31 


cipial constructions, so frequent and so diversified ameng the Greeks. 

In narration, a further prominent peculiarity of [lebrew-Greek consists 
in this, that the words of another are almost always quoted directly ; 
whereas the indirect introduction of quotations gives a distinctive cast to 
the Greek historical style, and occasions particularly the diversified use of 
the Optative, a mood almost unknown in the Greek writings of Jews. 

From this general Jewish influence alone the Greek of the Jews must 
have received a strongly marked character; but in particulars it received 
a great additional influence, and it is these particulars which are usually 
styled Hebraisms. 

a. Attaching the derivative meanings of a vernacular word to that 
foreign word which corresponds to it in primary signification was the 
simplest mode of Hebraizing (cf. ἐρωτᾶν 5x3 to interrogate and to request). 
Hence it would not be strange if the Jews had used δικαιοσύνη for alms, 
according to the use of mp3x%. Less dubious instances are ὀφείλημα pec- 
catum, after the Aram. 31m ; νύμφη (bride) also daughter-in-law Matt. x. 35, 


6thed, as MED denotes both (Sept. Gen. xxxviii. 11) ; εἷς for primus (in certain 


46 


cases) like SMx; ἐξομολογεῖσθαί τινι also praise one (thanking), like > mtn 
(Ps. evi. 47; cxxii. 4, and elsewhere in Sept.) ; εὐλογεῖν bless, 1.6. make 
happy, like 372; κτίσις thing ereated, ereation, cf. Chald. n™3; δόξα bright- 
ness, like “39 ; δυνάμεις miracles, minnaa. The transfer of figurative senses 
is the most frequent ; as, ποτήριον sors, portio Matt. xx. 22 (B52) ; σκάνδαλον 
stumbling-block in a moral sense (δ 1052) ; γλῶσσα for nation (72) ; χεῖλος 
for speech (FEW) ; ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ (Mim 5955) according to God's judgment ; 
καρδία εὐθεῖα (MU) ; περιπατεῖν walk, of one’s course of. life ; ὁδός (773) 
cf. Schif. ind..ad Aesop. p. 148; ἀνάθεμα not merely what is consecrated 
to God, but, agreeably to the Heb. ΘΠ, ἐο be destroyed, Rom. ix. 3, Deut. 
vii. 26, Josh. vi. 17, and elsewhere ; λύειν Matt. xvi. 19 for declare lawful, 
after the Rabbin. "nn. 

b. Numerous Hebraisms arose from the verbal translation of certain 


8 8. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. 83 


very common vernacular expressions; as, mpdswrov λαμβάνειν for O22 NY; 
ζητεῖν ψυχήν for ἘΞ9 wpa; ποιεῖν ἔλεος (χάριν) μετά τινος, for ἘΣ TOT Ney; 
ἀνοίγειν τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς or τὸ στόμα τινός (ΤΠ) ; epee θανάτου RN DEY 
(Talm.) ; ἄῤτον τ ρὸν (coenare) for ἘΠ’ D283; αἷμα ἐκχέειν (53 FEY) kill ; 
ἀνίστημι σπέρμα τινί for > 21 BIPM; vids ϑιδιοὺ for τ 3 (οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ 
νυμφῶνος) ; καρπὸς ὀσφύος for DN ὙἼΒ ; καρπὸς κοιλίας for 133 78; ἐξ- 
έρχεσθαι ἐκ τῆς ὀσφύος τινός for “B ἩΣΌΓΡ NET; ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός for VOR B39" ; 
ὀφείλημα ἀφιέναι for RIM PIV (Talm.) ; ‘also στηρίζειν τὸ ἀροῦν τόνοι αὑτοῦ for 33 
we DLN ; πᾶσα σάρξ for “ipan>2. ith ed 
c. The formation of foreign derivatives in imitation of vernacular, im- 
plies more reflection and contrivance ; as, ὁλοκαύτωμα (from ὁλοκαυτοῦν, 
Lob. 524) for m>3; σπλαγχνίζεσθαι from σπλάγχνα, as ἘΠῚ is connected 
with ΞΡ ; σκανδαλίζειν, σκανδαλίζεσθαι, like >223, deuisn ; ἐγκαυίζαν from 
. ἐγκαίνια, as 327) is related to ΓΒΕ ; ἀναθεματίζειν. like nvm; ὀρθρίζειν, like 
p-avin; perhaps ἐνωτίζεσθαι, like j-yxn, cf. Fischer ad Leusden dial. p. 27. 
Προςωποληπτεῖν, for which even the Hebr. has no single corresponding 
word, goes still further. 
All this easily accounts for the predominant Hebrew-Aramaic complexion 
of the style of the N. T. writers, who were not, like Philo and Josephus,? 
acquainted with Greek literature, and did not aim at writing correct Greek. 
Hence, the whole cast of their composition (particularly the want of com- 39 
pactness, especially in narration) must have offended a cultivated Greek 6th ed 
ear; indeed, numerous single expressions must either have conveyed 
to a native Greek an erroneous meaning, or have been entirely unintel- 
ligible (such as ἀφιέναι ὀφειλήματα, rpdswrov λαμβάνειν, λογίζεσθαι εἰς 
δικαιοσύνην, and the like); cf. Gataker de Stylo N. T. cap. 5. Hence also 47 
is explained why such Hebraistic turns of expression are less frequent in 
the original authors of the Ν. Τὶ than in the translators of the O. T., and 
in the Hellenistic writers of the N. T. (Paul, Luke, particularly in the 


1A similar Grecism in Latin is e.g. a teneris unguiculis (Cic. fam. 1, 6, 3), which 
although a Greek phrase was quite intelligible to the Romans, as e.g. καρπὸς χειλέων, 
though it must have had a strange sound, was unquestionably intelligible to the Greeks ; 
cf. καρπὸς φρενῶν, Pind. Nem. 10, 22. Still more easily must the Greeks have under- 
stood καρπὸς κοιλίας, since fruit, by itself, (for fruit of the body) was used in unambig- 
uous connections, as well among the Greeks (Arist. polit. 7, 16 ; Eurip. Bacch. 1305), 
as elsewhere ; cf. Ruhnken, ad Homer. in Cerer. 23. 

2 Though even Josephus, when narrating Old Test. history after the Septuagint, does 

᾿ not always avoid Hebraisms ; see Scharfenberg, de Josephi et LXX. consensu, in Pott’s 
sylloge, VII. p. 306 ff. 

8 That is, in the signification of remitting sins, so far, therefore, as regards ὀφειλήματα. 
For, ἀφιέναι remit, even applied to offences, occurs in Her. 6, 30, in the expression 
ἀφιέναι αἰτίαν, and ὀφειλήματα ἀφιέναι debita remittere (obligatory acts), is quite common. 
In later Greek we find ἀφιέναι τινὶ τὴν ἀδικίαν, Plutarch, Pomp. 34; see Coraes and 
Schif. in loc. The well-known phrase εὑρίσκειν χάριν would likewise have been under- 
stood by a native Greek, though it would have sounded strange to him (instead of 
εὑρίσκεσθαι).΄ 

8 





84 § 8. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. 


second part of the Acts, John, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews; 
cf. Tholuck, Com. Cap. I. § 2. S. 25 544.) than in those more strictly Pal- 
estinean (Matthew, Peter).! And it is obvious, further, that not all the 
Hebraisms in the diction of the apostles were adopted unconsciously (van 
d. Honert, Synt. p. 103). Religious expressions — and of these the main 
portion of N.T. Hebraisms consist — they must have been influenced to 
retain by the circumstance that in these expressions their religious ideas 
themselves were embodied, and because Christianity had to be built on a 
34 Jewish foundation? The existing Greek, too, possessed in fact no phrase- 
Ἰὼ ol. ology for the profound religious phaenomena which apostolic. Christianity 
disclosed.* Still, it is an exaggeration to assert, with Eichhorn and Bret- 
schneider (Prefat.ad Lexic. N. T. ed. 2. II. p.12),‘ that the authors of the 
N. T. in composition did all their thinking in Hebrew or Aramaic. That 
is the process of a tyro. We moderns even, in writing Latin, after we 
have attained a certain proficiency, gradually (though never altogether) 
cease to think first in our vernacular. Men who, though not regularly 
99 trained in the study of language, were constantly hearing Greek spoken 
6th ed, and very frequently, yes ordinarily, speaking it themselves, must soon have 
acquired such a command of its words and phrases and such skill in ex- 
pression, that in composition the Greek would present itself directly, and 
not solely through the medium of Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic words and 
phrases. The comparison of the authors of the N. T. with modern 
beginners in writing Latin, or even with (uneducated) Jews speaking 


1 The Grecian training of individual writers appears particularly in the appropriate 
use of verba composita and decomposita. 

2 Cf. Beza, ad Act. x. 46. Rambach is not altogether wrong in saying (institutt. 
hermen. 1, 2, 2): lingua N. T. passim ad ebraei sermonis indolem conformata est, ut 
hoe modo concentus scripturae utriusque test. non in rebus solum sed ipsis etiam in 
verbis clarius observaretur. Cf. Pfaff. nott. ad Matt. p. 34; Olear. 341 sqq.; Tittmann, 
de dilig. gramm. p. 6 sq. (Synon. I. p. 201 sq.). Further cf. J. W. Schroder, de causis 
quare dictio pure graeca in N. T. plerumque praetermissa sit, Marb. 1768. 4to.; also 
van Hengel, com. in ep. ad Philipp. p. 19. 

8 Some good remarks on this point are to be found in Hvalstroem, spec. de usu graeci- 
tatis alex. in N. T. (Upsal. 1794. 4to.) p. 6sq. Van den Honert went even so far as to 
assert : vel ipse Demosthenes, si eandem rem, quam nobis tradiderunt apostoli, debita 
perspicuitate et efficacia perscribere voluisset, hebraismorum usum evitare non potuisset. 

4 The latter, however, recalled this opinion, so far at least as regards Paul (Grundlage 
des evang. Pictism. u. s. w. S. 179). 

5 How easily do we, who never heard Latin spoken by a native Roman, attain the 
power of at once conceiving in Latin, dixit verum esse, or quam virtutem demonstravit 
aliis praestare, and the like, without first mentally construing dixit quod verum sit, or 
de qua virtute demonstravit, quod ea, etc. Thinking in conformity to the genius of 
one’s mother tongue, appears particularly in phrases and figures which have become 
habitual, and which one introduces unconsciously in speaking or writing a foreign 
language. So it was with the apostles, who constantly employed, and with perfect pro- 
priety, along with many Hebraistic expressions, numerous Greek phrases entirely foreign 
‘to the genius of Hebrew. 





§ 4. GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N.T. DICTION. 35 


German, is as incorrect as it is unworthy; cf. Schleiermacher, Hermeneut. 
S. 54, 59, 257. Besides, it is forgotten that the apostles found a Jewish- 
Greek idiom already current, and therefore did not first frame for them- 
selves most of their phraseology by thinking it out in Hebrew. 

(Many Greek words are used by the N.T. writers with a specific 
reference to the Christian system (even in contrast with Judaism), so to 
speak, like religious technical terms. Hence arises, apparently, a third 
element of N.T. diction, viz. the distinctively Christian (see Olear. de 
Stylo N. T. p. 380 344ᾳ. ed. Schwarz ; Eckard, technica sacra. Quedlinb. 
1716. 4to.). Compare particularly the words ἔργα (ἐργάζεσθαι Rom iv. 4), 
πίστις, πιστεύειν εἰς Χριστόν or πιστεύειν absol., ὁμολογία, δικαιοσύνη and δικαι- 
οὔσθαι, ἐκλέγεσθαι, οἱ κλητοί, ot ἐκλεκτοί, οἱ ἅγιοι (for Christians), ot πιστοί 
and οἱ ἄπιστοι, οἰκοδομή and οἰκοδομεῖν in the figurative sense, ἀπόστολος, 
εὐαγγελίζεσθαι and κηρύττειν absol. for Christian prea t the PARES 
tion of βάπτισμα for Christian baptism, perhaps «Adv . . ἄρτον 
for the holy repasts (the Agape with the Communion), ὃ κόσμος, 7 ‘otek 
ὃ σαρκικός, in the familiar theological sense, etc. Most of these expressions, 
however, already existed in the O. T. and in rabbinical writings." Accord- 
ingly it will not be easy to prove any phraseology to be altogether pecu- 
liar to the apostles—to have been introduced by them. ‘This apostolic 
element, therefore, is restricted rather to the meaning and application of 
words and phrases, and lies on the very outskirts of the province of philo- 
logical inquiry. Cf., however, Schleiermacher, Hermeneut. S. 56, 67 f. 
138 f. [and G. v. Zezschwitz, Profangriicitit u. biblisch. Sprachgeist. Eine 
Vorl. iib. die bibl. Umbildung hellenischer Begriffe, bes.der psychologfschen. 
Leipz. 1859. 8vo.]. In the historical vocabulary πάσχειν to suffer, and 
παραδίδοσθαι to be delivered up, absol., had established themselves as tech- 
nical expressions for the last earthly fate of Jesus.) 

Grammatical Hebraisms will be discussed in the next section. 


84. GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE ΚΝ. T. DICTION. 


As respects the grammatical character of the N.T. diction, 
those same two elements above mentioned may be distinctly traced. 
That is to say, here also the peculiarities of the N. T. phraseology 
are, fundamentally, those of the later (common) Greek language, 
and consist more in certain forms of inflection than in syntactical 
combinations. With these are occasionally mingled (though far 


1 To attempt to explain such expressions in the Christian terminology of the apostles 
by quotations from Greek authors (cf. Krebs, observ. praef. p.4) is extremely absurd. 
But, on the other hand, it is necessary to distinguish the diction of the apostles, far 
more tinged as it was with Old Testament peculiarities, from the terminology of the 
Greek Church, which was constantly growing more and more peculiar. 


48 


35 
Tth ed. 


34 
6th ed. 


49 


36 


τῷ od. 


35 


6th οἱ, 


86 84. GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION. 


less copiously) Hebrew turns and constructions in the use of all 
the parts of speech. A predilection for prepositions where the 
Greeks employ cases alone is especially noticeable. In general 
the grammatical character of the N. T. idiom conforms to the laws 
of the Greek language; the authors of the N. T. have even adopted 
many constructions peculiarly Greek (attraction of the relative 
and the preposition), and have observed strictly, though as by 
mere instinct, numerous distinctions entirely foreign to Hebrew 
(e.g. that between the negatives ov and μή, etc.). 


We find it true in Greek, as in almost all languages the history of whose 
growth can be traced, that changes produced by time are lexical in their 
nature far more than grammatical (compare, for instance, the German of 
Luther’s translation of the Bible with that of the present day). For the 
later common Greek exhibits but few grammatical peculiarities, and these 
almost all relate to inflections. We find, that is to say, first and foremost, 
a number of inflections in nouns and verbs which either were not used at 
all previously, and were first formed in later times by the abbreviation or 
the extension of the original forms, or which pertained exclusively to some 
one of the dialects. Of the latter sort are, for example, a. Attic inflections : 
τιθέασι, ἠβουλήθην, ἤμελλε, βούλει (βούλῃ), dyer; Ὁ. Doric: ἡ λιμός as fem., 
ἤτω (ἔστω), ἀφέωνται (ἀφεῖνται) ; c. Holic: the Optat. in ea in Ist Aor. 
(yet this was early adopted into Attic); d. Tonic : γήρει, σπείρης, εἶπα 
(1st Aor.). As forms quite unknown in the earlier language must be 
mentioned, Datives like vot, Imperat. κάθου, Perfects like ἔγνωκαν (for 
ἐγνώκασι), 2d Aorists and Imperfects like κατελίποσαν, ἐδολιοῦσαν, 2d Aorists 
like εἴδαμεν, ἔφυγαν, the Subjunctive Future ὃ 13, 1. e., the Imperf. ἤμεθα. 
To this head specially belong many tenses, regular indeed according to — 
analogy, but in place of which the earlier language used other forms; as, 
ἡμάρτησα for ἥμαρτον, αὔξω for αὐξάνω, ἧξα from ἥκω, φάγομαι for ἔδομαι, 
οἷο. ; indeed, the multiplication of tense and mood forms, of which for 
euphony’s sake only a few had been prevjously in use, is one of the char- 
acteristics of the later language. Further, many nouns received a new 
gender, as ἣ for ὃ βάτος, and acquired thus. a twofold declension; as, 
πλοῦτος, ἔλεος ; see ὃ 9 note 2, p. 65. 

Peculiarities of syntax are less numerous in the later language, — 
appearing chiefly in a careless use of the moods with particles. The 
following are instances under this head in the N.T.: ὅταν with the Indic. 
Pret., εἰ with the Subj., ἵνα with the Indic. Pres., verbs such as γεύεσθαι, 
καταδικάζειν construed with the Acc., προςκυνεῖν and προςφωνεῖν with Dat. 
of pers. (see Lob. 463; Mtth. II. 902), the weakening of ἵνα in phrases 
like θέλω ἵνα, ἄξιος iva, etc., the employment of the Gen. Inf. (τοῦ ποιεῖν) 
beyond its original and natural bounds, the use of the Subj. for the Optat. 
in narration after Preterites, and in general the infrequent use of the 


ὃ 4, GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N.T. DICTION. 37 


Optat., which in Modern Greek has entirely disappeared. Μέλλειν, θέλειν, 
etce., are more commonly followed by the Aor. Inf. (Lob. 747). The 
neglect of declension is just beginning to appear; thus, μετὰ τοῦ ἕν, and 
the like (which is, however, put designedly), § 10 end. Subsequently 
the misapplication of cases and tenses in some instances also occurs. Thus 
σύν with the Gen. in Niceph. Tact. (Hase ad Leon. Diac. p. 38), ἀπό with 
the Acc. in Leo Grammat. (p. 232) and then in Modern Greek, the inter- 
change of the Aor. and Pres. participles in Leo Diac. and elsewhere. 
The Dual was gradually superseded by the Plural. 

In ἃ grammatical point of view the N.'T. idiom bears few traces of 
Hebrew influence. True, the grammatical structure of the Hebrew 50 
(Aramaic) language differs essentially from that of the Greek; but this 37 
must have tended rather to prevent the Greek-speaking Jews from mixing ἴὰ οὐ, 
vernacular with Greek constructions. (Such mixture of constructions 
would be far easier to a German in speaking Latin or French.) Besides, 
every one makes the grammatical laws of a foreign language his own, 
more easily than he does its store of words and phrases and its general 
idiomatic peculiarities (cf. Schleiermacher, Hermeneut. 5. 73). This is 
so because the rules of syntax are but few in comparison with the number 
of words and phrases, and because these rules too (especially the principal 
ones, which are fundamental to accurate, not elegant, composition) by 
oral intercourse are far more frequently brought before the mind. The 
Jews, therefore, must have been able readily to acquire such a mastery 
of the grammatical rules of the Greek then current— which by no means 
possessed all the niceties of Attic — as sufficed for their simple mode of 
communicating their thoughts. Even the Seventy have succeeded for 
the most part in recasting Hebrew constructions into accurate Greek. 
Only a few vernacular idioms of frequent occurrence, and not at variance 
with the rules of Greek Grammar, have been retained to the letter (such 
as instead of the Optat. an interrogative clause expressing a wish, 2 Sam. 96 
xy. 4, τίς pe καταστήσει κριτήν ; xxiii. 15; Num. xi. 29; Deut. v. 26; bthed 
xxviii. 67; Cant. viii. 1°), or, where it could be done, rendered in accord- 
ance at least with Greek analogy (as, θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε Gen. iii. 4, mia 
pram Deut. xx. 17; 1 Sam. xiv. 39; Isa. xxx. 19) or by a construction 
already usual in Greek (see, however, ὃ 45, 8), Judg. xv. 2 μισῶν ἐμίσησας 
for mow six, Gen. xliii. 2; Ex. xxii. 17;. xxiii. 26; 1 Sam. ii. 25, ete.; 


1 Certain Greek idioms became quite habitual to them, such as the article with qual- 
ifying words and phrases after a noun (6 κύριος ὃ ἐν οὐρανῷ, and the like), the attraction 
of the relative, etc. Negatives, also, they almost always distinguish correctly. The 
more extended use of the Greek cases is exhibited by the better translators, as e.g. Gen. 
XXvi. 10, μικροῦ ἐκοιμήθη it wanted little that, ete. 

* Cf. Rom. vii. 24, where F’r. adduces similar instances from Greek poets. The con- 
struction with πῶς (ἄν) followed by the Optat. or Subjunct. is discussed by Schaefer, 
ad Soph. Oed. Col. p. 523, and Melet. p. 100. 





88 §4. GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION. 


cf. also Inf. with τοῦ Hebrew constructions thoroughly repugnant to the 
genius of the Greek, the Septuagint have usually rejected. For instance, 
the Fem. for the Neut. occurs only in a few passages, where the translators 
have not duly adverted to the meaning of the text, or have given it a 
nervously literal rendering; as, Ps. exix. 50; exviii. 23; and it is hardly 

38 allowable to suppose that they designedly employed it for the Neut. In 

Τὰ οἱ, other passages the Heb. Fem. refers manifestly to a feminine subject indi- 

51 cated in the context; as, Judges xix. 30. On the other hand, ἐν ταύτῃ in 
Neh. xiii. 14 is probably equivalent to ταύτῃ in Greek authors, in this 
respect, hoc in genere (Xen. Cyr. 8, 8,5) or therefore (cf. ταύτῃ ὅτι propterea 
quod, Xen. Anab. 2, 6,7); see also 1 Sam. xi. 2. The construction of 
Hebrew verbs with prepositions is imitated oftenest; as, φείδεσθαι ἐπί 
τινι Deut. vii. 16, or ἐπί τινα Ezek. vii. 4, οἰκοδομεῖν ἔν τινι Neh. iv. 10 
(3 M22), ἐπερωτᾶν ἐν κυρίῳ (Mima dev) 1 Sam. x. 22, εὐδοκεῖν ἔν τινι 
(3 yen Fr. Rom. II. 371). These imitations sound harsh in Greek, it 
must be confessed, yet in that flexible idiom they might find some point 
of affinity. (Cf the Germ. bauen an etwas, fragen bet, etc.) 

Even, however, if the Septuagint contained numerous other slavish 
imitations of Hebrew constructions, that would prove nothing in reference 
to the N.T. idiom. For, as has already been said, the style of these 
translators who, moreover, adhered for the most part with rigid exactness 
to the very letter of the Hebrew, — which sometimes indeed they did not 
even understand, — was by no means the model followed by the Jews in 
original composition or conversation. So far as regards the several rules 
of grammar, the Ν. Τὶ. is written thoroughly in Greek, and the few un- 
doubted grammatical Hebraisms it contains become hardly discernible. 

37 Τὸ Hebraisms of this sort may be referred, with more or less assurance,’ 
th ed. the use of prepositions where the Greeks employ cases alone (ἀποκρύπτειν 
τι ἀπὸ τινος, ἐσθίειν ἀπὸ τῶν ψιχίων, ἀθῶος ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος, κοινωνὸς ἔν 
τινι, ἀρέσκειν and προςκυνεῖν ἐνώπιόν τινος, εὐδοκεῖν and θέλειν ἔν τιν). Many 
such peculiarities, however, pertain to antique simplicity, and are accord- 
ingly in use among the Greeks themselves, especially the poets, and con- 


1 Hemsterhuis, ad Lucian. dial. mar. 4, 3: saepenumero contingit, ut locutio quaedam 
native graeca a LXX. interpretib. et N. T. seriptoribus mutata paululum potestate ad 
hebraeam apte exprimendam adhibeatur. 

2 The translation of the Psalms is, in general, one of the most heedless. That of 
Nehemiah is little better. Aquila, who translated word for word (absurdly rendering 
for instance, the nota acc. ™& by σύν), cannot be taken into consideration at all in an 
inquiry into the grammatical character of Hellenistic Greek. In order to give a literal 
translation he violates without hesitation the rules of grammar; as, Gen. i. 5, ἐκάλεσεν 
ὁ θεὸς τῷ φωτὶ ἡμέρας. And yet he always uses the article with propriety, and even em- 
ploys the attraction of the relative ; so deeply were both rooted in the Greek language! 

8 Imaginary Hebraisms are, the supposed Plur. ercell., the 2 essentiae, combinations 
erroneously regarded as circumlocutions for the superlative like σάλπιγξ τοῦ θεοῦ, the 
use of the Fem. for the Neut., and probably the Hypallage already mentioned τὰ ῥήματα 
τῆς ζωῆς ταύτης for ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα τῆς (ζωῆς. 








84. GRAM, SATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N.T. DICTION. 39 


sequently do not exactly conflict with the genius of the language ; as, 
παύειν ἀπό τινος. ᾿ 

Special and more decided instances are : 

a. The verbal imitation of such Hebrew constructions as offend against 
Greek propriety ; as, ὁμολογεῖν ἔν τινι, βλέπειν ἀπό sibi cavere a, προςέθετο 
πέμψαι, εἰ δοθήσεται as a form of negatory oath ; 

b. The repetition of a word to denote distribution, as δύο δύο bint, 
instead of ἀνὰ δύο ; 

c. The imitation of the Inf. absol. (see above) ; 

d. The use of the Gen. of an abstract noun for the kindred adjective, 
and probably the very frequent use of the Inf. with a preposition (and its 
subject in the Acc.) in narration. 

The peculiarities classed under a, and b. may be regarded as pure 
Hebraisms. 

When, however, it is considered that by far the majority of construc- 
tions in the N.T. are genuine Greek, and that the N.T. writers have 
constantly employed such peculiarities of Greek syntax’ as differed entirely 
from their vernacular idiom,—as the distinction of the different past 
tenses, the use of ἄν with verbs, the attraction of the relative, such an 
expression as οἰκονομίαν πεπίστευμαι, the use of the Sing. with Neuters, 
etc., —we shall not be disposed to join in the cry about countless gram- 
matical Hebraisms in the N. T. That the diction of the N. T. is grammat- 
ically far less Hebraistic than that of the Septuagint and the Palestinean 
Apocrypha, as might naturally be expected, will be manifest, if, when the 
expressions just specified as Hebraistic are observed in the Septuagint, it 
is also noticed that many a vernacular idiom in the LXX. never occurs 
in the N.T., or (such as an interrogative clause for the Opt.) only in soli- 
tary cases in impassioned style. A circumlocution for the Fut., as ἔσομαι 
διδόναι Tob. v. 14, or the repetition of a substantive to denote every (Num. 
ix. 10; 2 Kings xvii. 29; 1 Chron. ix. 27), never occurs there.* 

The N. T. writers considered separately exhibit extremely few purely 
grammatical peculiarities. Only the book of Rev. requires particular, 
though not exceptional, attention in a treatise on the grammar of the N. T. 

Finally, throughout the investigation into the grammatical character of 
the N. T. diction, it is obvious that the diversity of readings must be care- 
fully attended to; on the other hand, it is also plain that verbal criticism 
can be successfully practised only in connection with a thorough acquain- 
tance with the linguistic (lexical) peculiarities of the several N. T. writers. 


1 The more refined elegances of literary Attic are not to be found in the N. T., partly 
because they were unknown in the popular language adopted by the N. T. writers, partly 
because they were unsuited to the simple cast of thought of the sacred authors. 

2 Yet in the better translated portions of the O. T. and in the Palestin. Apocrypha 
we find single Greek constructions, on the other hand, instead of which the authors of the 
N. T. use the corresponding Hebraisms; thus, in 3 Esr. vi. 10; Tob. iii. 8, the Gen. is 
used with strict Grecian propriety. Further, cf. Thiersch, de Pentat. alex. p. 95 sq. 


52 


39 
Tth ed, 


38 
6th ed. 


40 

39 ; 

9: Ἢ THE GRAMMATICAL FORMS AS RESPECTS THEIR FORMATION. 
(INFLECTION.) 


—_e—. 


§ 5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. 


1. THE best manuscripts of the N. T. (like those of the Greek 
classics, see Poppo, Thue. I. 214; Mtth. I. 183) exhibit extraor- 
dinary variations of orthography, especially in regard to particular 
words and forms. | Amid such diversity it_ it cannot always be de- 
termined on satisfactory grounds what is ie However, 
editors of the text should lay down precise rules, and carry them 
out consistently. 

Though the various Codd. have recently been collated with 
greater diplomatic exactness, still, on many points, a more careful 
settlement of the facts is to be desired. 

We submit the following remarks: 

a. The use of an apostrophe to prevent a hiatus is of much 
rarer occurrence in the Codd. of the Ν. Τὶ, and of the Sept., than 
in the texts of native Greek authors (especially the orators ; ef. 
G.E. Benseler, de hiatu in scriptorib. gr. P. I. Friberg. 1841. 8vo. ; 
the same, de hiatu in Demosth. Friberg. 1847. 4to.): ἅμα, dpa, 
ἄρα, γέ, ἐμέ, ἔτι, ἵνα, ὥςτε, never suffer elision of the last vowel ; 
dé (before dv) and οὐδέ very seldom (Matt. xxiii. 16 and 18; 
xxiv. 21; Rom. ix. 7; 1 Cor. xiv. 21; Heb. viii. 4; Luke x. 10; 
2 Cor. iii. 16; xi. 21; Phil. ii. 18; 1 John ii. 5; iii. 17). Only 
the prepositions ἀπό, διά, ἐπί, παρά, μετά, and the conjunction 
ἀλλά regularly suffer elision, the former particularly before pro- 
nouns and in phrases of frequent occurrence, as ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, etc. ; 
ἀντί only in ἀνθ᾽ ὧν, Yet the manuscripts vary in those cases, 
and even the best in particular passages, especially in regard to 
ἀλλά. Thus the Cod. Alex. [Sin.] and some others, have in Acts 
xxvi. 25 ἀλλὰ ἀληθείας ; Vii. 39 ἀλλὰ ἀπώσαντο ; 2 Pet. ii. 5 ἀλλὰ 


Peel ee | PS ΎσΝ  ῸΜΚ 


Nee pe ee Oe Nas 


ἊΝ 


g§5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. 41. 


ὄγδοον. The best Codd. have 2 Cor. xii. 14 ἀλλὰ ὑμᾶς, and Gal. 
iv. 7 ἀλλὰ υἱός. So also the authority of manuscripts is in favor 
of, Luke 11.806 μετὰ ἀνδρός ; xiv. 81 μετὰ εἴκοσι ; 2 Cor. vi. 15 μετὰ 
ἀπίστου; Rev. xxi. 13 ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν ; Heb. xi. 84 ἀπὸ ἀσθενείας, 41 
Jude 14 ἀπὸ ᾿Αδάμ; 2 Cor. v. 7 διὰ εἴδους. Cf. also Acts ix. 6; Me 
x. 20; xvi. 37; 2 Cor. iv. 2; v.12; Luke xi. 17 ἐπὶ οἶκον ; Matt. 54 
xxi. 5 ἐπὶ ὄνον, etc. There is a preponderance of authority for 4 
Luke iii. 2 ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως, and Matt. xxiv. 7 ἐπὶ é@vos; 1 Cor. vi. 11 τ ἃ 
ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε; Whereas the authority is 
equal in Rom. vii. 13 for ἀλλὰ ἡ ἁμαρτία and the other reading. 
Cf. besides, Sturz, dial. Alex. p. 125. That among Ionic authors 
the same indifference about shunning a hiatus prevails is well 
known; and accordingly this peculiarity in the N. T. is styled by 
the earlier biblical philolegists an Ionism. Elision is neglected, 
however, by Attic prose authors, though the instances which Georgi 
produces from Plato cannot all be trusted (Hierocrit. N.T. I. p. 
143). See Bttm. I. S. 123 ff; Heupel, Marc. p. 33; Benseler, 
Exc. to his edition of Isocr. Areop. p. 385 sqq.; Jacobs, praef. ad 
Aelian. anim. p. 29sq.; Thucyd. ed. Poppo III. II. 358. Perhaps 
this variation is not without principle, as e.g. Sintenis (Plutarch. 
vit. IV. p. 8321sqq.) has reduced to rules the use of the hiatus in 
Plutarch. In the N. T., too, the omission of the elision might be 
occasionally traced to the writer’s intent, on one ground or another; 
not that the apostles bestowed attention on such things, but so far 
as they were guided by an instinctive sense of propriety. On this 
point, however, there is a risk of trifling (Bengel on 1 Cor. vi. 11) 


Even in Lchm. the poetic quotation from Menander, 1 Cor. xv. 33, is 
written with the elision— χρῆσθ᾽ (for χρηστὰ) ὁμιλίαι κακαί; cf. Georgi, 
Hierocrit. 1.180. The best Codd., however, of the N. T. [Sin. also] have 
χρηστά, which Tdf. has adopted. 


b. In regard to final ¢ in οὕτως, μέχρις, and the so-called ν 
ἐφελκυστικόν (Voemel, de ν et ς adductis literis. Fef. a. M. 1853. 
4to; Haake, Beitriige z. griech. Grammat. 1. Heft), editors have 
mostly followed the known rule, which, however, has been restricted 
by more recent grammarians (Bttm. I. 92ff.). But it is more 
advisable to be guided in every case by the authority of the best 
Codd., and accordingly recent N. T. critics have printed οὕτως and 
ν ἐφελκυστικόν throughout, agreeably to the uncial Codd. (Τα. 
praef. ad N.T. p. xxiii. [ed. vii. p. liii.]). Critics have tried to 
deduce from the Greek prose authors a fixed rule for determining 


when οὕτως or οὕτω, εἶπεν or εἶπε, etc., should be used (Bornem, 
6 


re 


42 
Tth od. 
41 
Gih ed. 
δῦ 


42 §5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. 


de gemina Cyrop. recens. p. 89, whom Poppo in his Index to the 
Cyrop. follows; Frotscher, Xen. Hier. p.9; Bremi, Aeschin. Ctesiph. 
8 and 4; Schif. Demosth. I. p. 207; Miitzner, ad Antiphont. p.192), 
and it is in itself not unlikely that the more careful authors were 
guided in this by euphony (Franke in Jahn’s Jahrb. 1842. 8. 247) 
and other considerations,! though ancient grammarians affirm 
(Bekkeri Anecd. LI. p. 1400) that even the Attics wrote v ἐφελ- 
κυστικόν indiscriminately before consonauts even (Jacobs, praef. 
ad Aelian. anim. p. 23 sq.), and so it appears in the Codd. ; ef. 
also Bachmann, Lycophr. I. 156 sq. ; Benseler, Isocr. Areopag. Ρ. 
185 sq. On μέχρι and μέχρις, ἄχρι and ἄχρις in particular, see 
Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 479. According to the grammarians the 
Attic orthography requires wéype and ἄχρι even before a vowel 
(Th. M. p. 185; Phryn. p. 14; cf. Bornem. Xen. Cyrop. 8, 6, 20), 
and so they are printed by recent editors; cf. Stallb. Plat. Phaed. 
p- 183. and Sympos. p. 128; Schif. Plutarch. V. p. 268, See in 
general Klotz, Devar. p. 231. Yet even in Attic authors good 
Codd. have not unfrequently the form with s. (In the N. T. the 


/ best Codd. give μέχρι invariably, and ἄχρι even before vowels, 


Acts xi. 5; xxviii. 15; but ἄχρις οὗ, Rom. xi. 25; 1 Cor. xi. 26; 


\ xv. 25, etc., preponderates (also Acts vii. 18). 


Codd. vary also as to ν in εἴκοσι, but the best are said to omit it, see 
Taf. praef. ad N. T. p. 23 [ed. vii. p.54], though in the appar. this matter 
is but seldom noticed. On ἄντικρυς, as most authorities [Sin. also] have 
in Acts xx. 15, not ἀντικρύ, see Lob. Phryn. p. 443 sq. ; Bttm. 11. 366. 


c. In compounds whose first part ends in s, Knapp, after Wolf 
(liter. Analect. 1 Bd. 8. 460 ff. ; ef. Kriig. S. 12), introduced the 
form ς for o, and has been followed in this by Schulz and Fr., os 
ὥςπερ, ὅςτις, δύςκολος, elshépew. Still, Matthiae’s objections (1. 8 


.26) deserve great consideration ; and \t \this_ orthography, as it hes 


no historic warrant, has no great claim to adoption) Schneider 
in Plato, and Lchm. in the N.T., write ὥσπερ, εἰσακούειν, etc. 
Hm., however, committed himself to the former method. That 
it is inadmissible in such words as πρεσβύτερος, βλασφημεῖν, τε- 
λεσφορεῖν, is obvious. 

d. Of more importance than all this is the unusual mode of 
spelling certain words and classes of words which is found even 


1 The disputed question, whether οὕτως or οὕτω was the original spelling (for the 
former see Schiif. Plutarch. V. p. 219, for the latter Bttm. TI. 264), and whether v ἐφελκ. 
really belongs to the forms to which it is annexed (see Rost, Gramm. 8S. 71; Krii. 30) 


is not relevant here. 


§ 5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. 43 


in the manuscripts of the N.T. and has been almost without 
exception adopted into the text by Lechm. and Tdf. This com- 
prehends peculiarities of Alexandrian orthography (and pronun- 
ciation). We notice the following particulars : 

1. For ἕνεκα we find in MSS. (and in the text. rec.) several times the 
Tonic form εἵνεκα or εἵνεκεν (Wolf, Dem. Lept. p. 388 ; Georgi, Hierocr. I. 


43 


182), elsewhere ἕνεκεν : the last e.g. Matt. xix. 29; Rom. viii. 36; the first Tth ed. 


Luke iv. 18; 2 Cor. iii. 10; vii. 12. The authority of good Codd. must 
alone here decide; cf. Poppo, Cyrop. p. xxxix and Ind. Cyrop. and W. m. 
Buttm. II. 369. { In the N. T. at least no distinction can be fixed between 
the two forms;) Weber, Demosth. 403sq. See also Bremi, exc. VI. ad 
Lysiam p. 443 sqq. 

2. According to good MSS. even of the N. T. (e.g. Codd. [Sin. and] 
Cantabr.) and according to the Etymol. Mag. ἐννενήκοντα Matt. xviii. 12, 13; 
Luke xv. 4, 7, is better written ἐνενήκοντα ; see Bttm. I. 277; Bornem. 
Xen. Anab. p.47. So also évaros occurs according to good Codd. in Matt. 
xx. 5; xxvii. 45; Luke xxiii. 44; Acts x. 30, βίο. ; cf. also Rinck, lucu- 
bratt. p. 33, a form very common in Greek prose authors (see Schiif. Melet. 
Ρ. 32; Scholiast ad Apollon. Argon. 2, 788), and also found in the Rosetta 
Inscription, 4th line. It was preferred by Bengel, appar. ad Matt. xx. 5. 

8. The Ionic form (Mtth. I. 54) τέσσερες, τεσσεράκοντα occurs several 
times in good Codd. (particularly Alex. [Sin.] and Ephraemi) ; e.g. Acts 
iv. 22; vii. 42; xiii. 18; Rev. xi. 2; xiii. 5; xiv. 1; xxi. 17, and Lehm. 
and Tdf. have admitted it into the text. It frequently occurs also in Codd. 
of the Sept. (Sturz, dial. Alex. p.118). In these ancient documents, how- 
ever, a and ε are often interchanged, and one would scarcely consent to 
write Matt. viii. 3 ἐκαθερίσθη, Luke xvii. 14 ἐκαθερίσθησαν, or Heb. x. 2 
κεκαθερισμένους with “A, and the like. 

4. For βαλάντιον in every place where it occurs, Luke x. 4; xii. 33; 
xxii. 35, 36, good Codd. have βαλλάντιον, and this Lchm. and Tdf. have 
printed. Also in MSS. of Greek authors we find this doubling both in 
βαλλάντιον itself (Bornem. Xen. conv. p. 100) and in its derivatives. 
Bekker in his Plato has adopted it. Yet see Dindorf, Aristoph. ran. 772, 
and Schneider, Plat. civ. I. p. 75, III. p. 38. The word κράββατος is but 
seldom written with a single β (and then mostly κράβαττος). 

d. As to ὑποπιάζω (ὑποπιέζω) for ὑπωπιάζω (from ὑπώπιον), Luke xviii. 5 ; 
1 Cor. ix. 27 var., see Lob. p. 461. It is probably merely a mistake of 
the copyists ; for Paul undoubtedly used the more characteristic ὑπωπιάζω 
and that has now long stood in the text. Whether we should write 
ἀνώγαιον or ἀνάγαιον can hardly be determined, the authorities for each 
being nearly equal. The former is derived from the adv. ἄνω, the latter 
from ἀνά (Fr. Mr. 611). See, besides, Lob. Ὁ; 297. 

6. The well-known controversy about the right way of spelling adverbs 
in tor εἰ (Hm. Soph. Ai. p. 183; Sturz, opusc. p. 229 sqq.), affects the 


56 


42 
6th ed 


44 §5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. 


N. T. only in regard to πανοικί Acts xvi. 34; cf. Plat. Eryx. 892 c.; Aesch. 
dial. 2,1; Joseph. Antt. 4, 4,4; 3 Mace. iii. 27. Bloomfield, glossar. in 
Aesch. Prom. p. 131 sq., is perhaps right in thinking that such adverbs 
from nouns in os should be written with « only (πανοικί, properly πανοικοΐ, 
5T as some Codd. have in Acts, as above). Still, nearly all the Codd. are in 
favor of εἰ; see Poppo, Thue. 11. I. 1540; Lob. 515. 
7. Should we write Δαυΐδ or Δαβίδ "ἢ See Gersdorf, Sprachchar. I. 44, 
mi. who leaves it undecided, yet adopts the spelling with 8. The Codd. usually 
tied. have it abbreviated, Aaé, yet occasionally the older and better, where they 
give it at full length, have Δαυΐδ (Δαυείδ), as Knapp, Schulz, Ετ., Taf. 
have printed it. Montfaucon, Palaeograph. graec. 5, 1, decided for the 
latter. Lchm.has invariably Δαυείδ: cf. besides Bleek on Heb. iv. 7. 

8. The name of Moses is written Μωῦσῆς in the principal Codd. of the 
N. T. (as in the Sept. and Josephus), and this has been adopted by Knapp, 
Schulz, Lchm., Tdf. Still, it is a question whether this properly Coptic 
form, which in the e Sept. is justifiable, should not in the N. T. give place 
to the form Μωσῆς, which comes nearer the Hebrew and is certainly more 

43 usual; this passed over also to the Greeks (Strabo 16, 760 sq.) and 
the Romans, and has been retained by Scholz. On the diaeresis in Μωῦσῆς, 
dropped by Lchm., see Fr. Rom. II. 313. 

9. As to Κολοσσαί and Κολασσαί see the expositors on Col. i.1. The 
first of these forms is found not only on the coins of that city (Eckhel, 
doctrina numor. vett. I. III. 147), but also in the best Codd. of the classics 
(cf. Xen. Anab. 1, 2, 6); hence it was preferred by Valckenaer, ad Her. 
7,30. In the N. T., however, the form with a has more authority, and 
has been adopted by Lchm. and Tdf. It exhibits probably ab popular 
pronunciation. 

10. For évveds Acts ix. 7, it is better to write éveds (cf. dvews), agreeably 
to the best Codd. ᾿ 

11. The un-Attic form οὐθείς, οὐθέν, is found altogether in the Ν. T. 
only in single though good Codd., Luke xxiii. 14; 1 Cor. xiii. 2; 2 Cor. 
xi. 8; Acts xv. 9; xix. 27: μηθέν Acts xxiii. 14; xxvii. 33; see Lob. 
Phryn. p. 181sq. It occurs also in the Sept. (Bornem. Act. p. 115) and 
in Greek papyrus rolls. 

12. ᾿Ἐθύθη 1 Cor. v. 7, text. rec., for which all the better Codd. have 
ἐτύθη (Bttm. I. 78), is unusual, but rests on an unexceptionable retaining 
of the radical θ where there is no reduplication (λιθωθῆναι, καθορθῆναι), 
though both the verbs θύειν and θεῖναι (the only ones of which the stem 
begins with 6 and which form a Ist Aor.) change the radical 6 in the Ist 
Aor. into τ (Lob. Paralip. 45). The participle θυθείς, analogous in form 
to the above example, occurs in Dio Cass. 45,17. (In Aesch. Choéph. 
242, the editions have τυθείς). It is not improbable that the first form 
was employed by Paul, and suppressed by the copyists. 

13. For χρεωφειλέτης the best Codd. have χρεοφειλέτης Luke vii. 41 ; 


§5, ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. 45 


xvi. 5, which Zonaras rejects, and it occurs only once in the MSS. of 
Greek authors ; see Lob. Phryn. p. 691. 

14. The rough mutes for the smooth in ἔφιδε Acts iv. 29, and ἀφίδω 
Phil. ii. 23, Lchm. has already adopted on the authority of MSS. Other 
similar forms are ἐφ᾽ ἐλπίδι 1 Cor. ix. 10; ἀφελπίζοντες. Luke vi. 35; οὐχ 
ὄψεσθε Luke xvii. 223 οὐχ “lovdaixas Gal. 11. 145; οὐχ ὀλίγος Acts xii. 18, 
etc., (cf. Bornem. Acta, p. 24). Analogous forms occur in the Sept. 58 
(Sturz, dial. Alex. p. 127) and in Greek inscriptions. (Bockh, Inscript. 1. 
301, and II. 774), and are explained by the fact that many of those words, 
as ἐλπίς, ἰδεῖν, had been pronounced with the digamma. 

15. Πραύς and zpairns appear in the N.T. to be the better attested 
readings, though Photius, in his Lexicon, p. 386, Lips., prefers πρᾶος ; yet 45 
see Lob. Phryn. p. 403 sq. th od 

16. Ἔχθές (not χθές, Lob. path. p. 47) Lchm. has already received into 
the text, agreeably to the best Codd. 





——— οὐ ΘΑ ». Ὁ ..". 


2. Whether such words as διὰ τί, ἵνα τί, διά γε, ἀλλά γε, ἀπ᾽ 
ἄρτι, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι should be written separate or united, can hardly be 
! determined on any general principle ; and the matter is of the less 
moment as the best Codd. themselves vary extremely. Knapp 
. has printed most “such words combined ; and, in fact, two small 
words in expressions of frequent recurrence are wont readily to 
blend thus in pronunciation (as the crases in διό, διότι, καθά, ὥςτε, 44 
also μηκέτι and others, show). Schulz, on the contrary, defends ‘the 
their separation. Would he write also εἴ ye, τοι viv, οὐκ ἔτι, etc. ? 
How much the Codd. in the main favor their junction may be 
seen from Poppo, Thue. I. p. 455. Schulz himself, too, has printed 
διαπαντός Mark vy. 5, Luke xxiv. 53; and Schneider in his Plato 
follows almost invariably the united mode of writing them. Many 
inconveniences, however, would arise from carrying out strictly 
either mode of writing ; and as the oldest and best Codd. of the 
N. T. are written continuously, thus affording no guidance on this 
point, it would probably be advisable constantly to combine such 
words in the N. T. in the following cases: a. Where the language 
supplies an obvious analogy, e.g. οὐκέτι like μηκέτι, τουγάρ like 
τοίνυν, ὅςτις cf. ὅτου. Ὁ. Where one of the words does not elsewhere 
occur separately (in prose) ; therefore, εἴπερ, καίπερ. c. When an 
enclitic follows a monosyllable or dissyllable with which it usually 
constitutes a single idea, as εἴτε, εἴγε, dpaye; but not διώγε τὴν 
ἀναίδειαν Luke xi. 8 (Lchm. divides). d. Where the words have 
a different signification according as they are separated or united ; 
as, ὁςτιςοῦν quicumque, but ὅς τις οὖν Matt. xviii. 4 quisquis igitur 
(Bttm. I. 808), ἐξαυτῆς adv. and ἐξ αὐτῆς (not to mention οὐδείς 


eS ae Oe eee eee ON eee SC 


σῦν. 


59 


46 
Tth ed. 


45 
6th ed. 


46 §5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. 


and οὐδ᾽ εἷς). The former οὖν, however, is usually found disunited 
in the Codd., and by the authors themselves is sometimes separated 
by the interposition of a conjunction; see Jacobs, praef. Aelian. 
anim. p. 25. ΑΒ for the rest, much must be left to the editor’s 
judgment in each particular instance. However, he could hardly 


find clear ground for writing διαπαντός, or even ὑπερεγώ (2 Cor. 


xi. 23, Lchm.) and the like; although in general it must not be 
forgotten that in the language of the N. T., as closely approaching 
popular speech, orthographic combinations are especially frequent. 

In the editions of the N.T. the pronoun ὅ,τι was invariably so written 
(with the hypodiastole), Luke x. 35; Jno. ii. 5; xiv. 13; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; 
ete., till Lchm., after Bekker, introduced 6 τι (as ds τις, 4 τις). Some 
think even this separation unnecessary (as Schneider, Plat. civ. I. praef. 
Ρ. 48sq.); cf. Jen. Lit. Z. 1809, IV. 174. The non-separation, besides 
other recommendations, has in its favor the consideration that an arbitrary 
exposition of the text is not forced upon the reader. (In the N. T. par- 
ticularly it has often been doubtful which of the two is to be read, as Jno. 
viii. 25; Acts ix. 27; 2 Cor. iii. 14.) Once, however, we decide between 
pron. and conj., it is safest to write 6 τὰ with a space, or even to retain the 
hypodiastole. 


3. Crasis! occurs on the whole but seldom, and only in particular 
forms of frequent recurrence. In these, however, it is found almost 
without var. The most common instances are κἀγώ, κἄν, κἀκεῖ, 
κἀκεῖθεν, κἀκεῖνος, also κἀμοί, Luke i. 3; Acts viii. 19; 1 Cor. iii. 1; 
xv. 8; κἀμέ. Jno. vii. 28; 1 Cor. xvi. 4; τοὐναντίον, 2 Cor. ii. T; 
Gal. ii. 7; 1 Pet. iii. 9; once τοὔνομα, Matt. xxvii. 57. On the 
other hand, good Codd. have throughout τὰ αὐτά, Luke vi. 23 ; 
xvii. 30; 1 Thess. ii. 14. Instances like τουτέστι, καθά, καθάπερ, 
are not properly called crasis. 

Contraction, where usual, is rarely neglected; cf. on ὄστεα, 
χειλέων, νοΐ, and the like §§$ 8 and 9, besides ἐδέετο, Luke viii. 38, 
according to the best Codd., ef. Fr. de conform. crit. p. 32, as often 
in Xenoph. See Bttm. 11.150; Lob. 220. The verb καμμύειν ex- 
hibits a contraction of a peculiar sort; cf. Lob. 340. 

There is good authority for καὶ ἐκεῖ, Matt. v. 23; xxviii. 10; Mark i, 
85, 88 ; καὶ ἐκεῖθεν, Mark x. 1; καὶ ἐκείνοις, Matt. xx. 4, ete. 

4. In the earlier editions of the N. T. the Iota subscript [?] was 
too frequently introduced. This abuse was first censured by 
Knapp. The iota must be decidedly rejected: 


1 Ahrens, de crasi et aphaeresi. Stollberg, 1845. 4to. 
|? Cf. K. H. A. Lipsius, grammat. Unterss. iiber die biblische Griicitiit. Leipz. 8ve 


8.3 ff] 


ee ee a ΓΕ 


85. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. 47 


a. In cases of crasis with καί when the first syllable of the 
second word does not contain an ὁ (as κᾷτα from καὶ εἶταν, there- 
fore in κἀγώ, κἀμοί, κἀκεῖνος, κἄν, κἀκεῖ, κἀκεῖθεν, etc. See Hm. 
Vig. p. 526 ; Bttm. 1. 114. The subs., however, is defended by 
Thiersch, Gr. § 38 note 1, and Poppo has retained it in Thucyd. 

after the best MSS. (Thue. 11. I. p. 149). 

τ b. In the 2d perf. and 1st aor. act. of the verb αἴρω and its com- 
pounds, thus e.g. ἦρκεν Col. ii. 14; ἄραι Matt. xxiv. 17; ἄρον Matt. 60 
ix. 6; ἦραν Matt. xiv. 12; ἄρας 1 Cor. vi. 15, ete. See Bttm. I. 
413, 439; Poppo, Thue. 11. I. 150. 

6. In the Doric Inf., used also by the Attics (Mtth. I. 148), Sv, 
διψῆν, πεινῆν, χρῆσθαι. According to ancient grammarians! (who 
flourished after Christ) the iota ought to be rejected also in con- 
tract verbs in dw; as ἀγαπᾶν, ὁρᾶν, τιμᾶν, probably inasmuch as 
these forms arose from (the Doric) τιμάεν, like μισθοῦν from 47 
μισθόεν ; see Wolf in the lit. Analekten 1 Bd. S. 419 ff. Bengel *e 
favored this form, and it has been defended and followed by several 
scholars (Reiz, Lucian. IV. p. 393 sq. ed. Bp.; Elmsley, Eurip. 
Med. v. 69, and praef. ad Soph. Oedip. R. p. 9sq.; Hllendt, Arrian. 
Al. I. p. 14sq.). Bttm. I. 490, and ΜΠ. I. 457, declare them- 

selves undecided, and many editors have retained the old mode of 
writing (as Lobeck, cf. his technol. p. 188). Schulz, Lchm. and 
Tdf., however, have rejected the z subs. from the N. T.; cf. Eph. 
vy. 28; Rom. xiii. 8; Mark viii. 32; John xvi. 19. 

ἃ. There is nothing decisive for wp tos (Lob. Phryn. 403; pathol. 
serm. gr. p. 442), yet see Bttm. I. 255. Neither has πρωΐ, from 
πρό, ane subs. ; see as to this word in general, Bttm. ad Plat. Crit. 

Ρ. 48, and Lexilog. 17, 2. 

e. As to πάντη Acts xxiv. 3, see Bttm. II. 360. The ὦ, which 
has a right to stand in ἄλλῃ, ταύτῃ, as actual Datives, should be 
rejected in πάντη, which has no corresponding Nom. The old 46 
grammarians, however, are of a different opinion (Lob. paralip. tie 
56 sq.), and Lehm. has printed πάντῃ. Also κρυφῆ (Dor. κρυφᾶ) 
Eph. v. 12, ef. Xen. conv. 5, 8, and εἰκῆ (Bttm. 11. 342) have been 

received into the N. T. text; cf. Poppo, Thue. 11. 1.150. Lehm. 
still writes λάθρᾳ, though λάθρα is more correct; Schneider, Plat. 
civ. I. p. 61 praef. ; Ellendt, lex. Soph. Il. p. 8sq. Lastly, 

f. Since Lchm. ἀθῷον stands in the text of the N.T. Matt. 
xxvii. 4, 24 (d@wiov, Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 1267), cf. also Weber, 


1 Cf. Vig. p. 220. See also Gregor. Choerobosc. Dictata ed. Gaisford, tom. II. p. 721. 
Yet see Hm. Vig. 748. 


61 


48 
Tth ed. 


47 


48 § 5, ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. 


Demosth. p. 231; but contrary to all tradition, Lob. pathol. graec. 
serm. p. 440.1 ᾿ 


After the example of Bekker and others, Lchm. began, in the larger 
edition of his N. T., to reject the breathings over double p as useless ; but 
he has found no followers [except Tdf. ed. vii.]. That the Romans also 
heard an aspiration in the middle of words is clear from the orthography 
of Pyrrhus, Tyrrhenus, etc. Bttm. I. 5. 28. Still less can one bring one’s 
self to omit the breathing also over p at the beginning of a word, as some 
do; see in opposition Rost, Gramm. S. 17 f. [or, as Lehm. does, to mark 
with a smooth breathing the first pin words the first two syllables of which 
begin with p; see in opposition Géttling, Accentl. p. 205]. 

The Alexandrians (Sturz, dial. Alex. p. 116 sqq.) had, as it is admitted, 
their peculiar Greek orthography, which not only interchanged letters (as 
αι and εἰ, ε and y, cand εἰ, cf. εἰδέα Matt. xxviii. 3, y and x), but even 
added superfluous ones, to strengthen the forms of words; as, ἐκχθές, 
βασιλέαν, νύκταν, φθάννειν, ἐκχυννόμενον, ἔσσπειρε, ἀναβαίννον, ἥλλατο (Acts 
χὶν. 10 ; vii. 206 ; cf. Poppo, Thue. I. 210). On the other hand, necessary 
letters (when doubled) they rejected; as, δυσεβής, σάβασι, ἀντάλαγμα, φύλα, 
ἐρύσατο, dpados (Jno. xix. 23). They disregarded, too, the methods by 
which the Greeks avoided a harsh concurrence of many or of dissimilar 
consonants (Bttm. I. 75 ff.) ; as, λήμψομαι, ἀναλημφθείς (Bttm. 11. 231), 
προςωπολημψία, ἀπεκτάνκασι, ἐνχώριον, συνκάλυμμα, συνρητεῖν, συνπνίγειν, 
συνμαθητής, πένπει. These peculiarities are found, partly in good MSS. of 
the Sept. and of the N. T. (Tdf. praef. ad N. T. p. 20 sq. [ed. vii. p. 46 sqq. ]) 
which are said to have been executed in Egypt, e.g. Cod. Alex., [Cod. 
Sin.], Cod. Vatic., Cod. Ephraem. (ed. Tdf. p. 21), Cod. Cantabr., Cod. 
Claromont. (Tdf. prolegg. ad cod. Clarom. p. 18), Cod. Cypr. (see Hug, 
Einleit. I. 5. 238, 242, 244, 245, 247, 249,254; Scholz, curae crit. in hist. 
text. evangg. pp. 40, 61); partly in Coptic and Graeco-Coptic documents 
(see Hug. I. 239), with more or less uniformity. ‘They cannot, therefore, 
be dismissed as but caprices of the copyists, as Planck thinks (de orat. 
N. T. indole, p. 25, note), especially as for many of them analogies can be 
adduced from the older dialects. At the same time, many of them are not 
specially Alexandrian, as the like occur in Codd. of Greek authors, and in 
Greek inscriptions, that cannot be traced to an Egyptian origin; as, e.g. 
εἰ for t, ey for ex, (on λήμψομαι cf. the Ion. λάμψομαι Mtth. 609) ; and, on 


θὲ οἱ, the other hand, many Egyptian documents are tolerably free from the 


peculiarities in question. 
Lchm. and Tdf., on the concurrent testimony of good (but for the most 
part few) Codd. in Matt. xx. 10; xxi. 22; Mark xii. 40; Luke xx. 47; 


1 The spelling φόν ( Wessel, Her. 2, 68), ζῷον, which Jacobs, in Aelian. animal., re- 
cently adopted on the authority of a good Cod., nobody will be disposed to introduce 
into the N. T.; still less σῴζειν, Cf. Lob. pathol. p. 442. 


§ 6, ACCENTUATION. 49 


Acts i. 2, 8,11, 22; Jas.i.7; Mark i. 27; 2 Cor. vii. 3; Phil. ii. 25, 
etc. (sometimes without giving authorities, Matt. xix. 29; John xvi. 14; 
1 Cor. iii. 14; Phil. iii. 12; Rom. vi. 8, ete.), have received these forms 
into the text. Without more convincing proof, however, than what has 
been produced by Tdf. praef. ad. N. T. p. 19 [ed. vii. p. 45] all the peculi- 
arities of the Alex. dialect, and in particular of the Alex. orthography, 
should not be attributed to Palestinean writers, (as John, Paul, James) ; 
and it is improbable that the N. T. writers should have followed that 
orthography only in comparatively few instances.’ Besides, Cod. B in 
reference to this point has not yet been thoroughly collated. According 
to what Tdf. has said, as above, p. 21, he might have been expected to 
adopt such forms more frequently. 

The introduction, therefore, of this orthography into the text of the 
N. T.— if editors choose to imitate on such points the Codd., even in edi- 
tions intended for general use — must undergo renewed and thorough 
consideration ; and at the same time the question may be raised, whether 62 
this orthography was not a mode of spelling adopted by the learned rather 49 
than the actual pronunciation of the peopie, somewhat as in Roman in- Tthed 
scriptions (Schneider, lat. Grammat. I. 11. 530 f., 543 f, 566 ἢ etc.) we 
find adferre, inlatus, and the like, written according to the etymology. 


§6. ACCENTUATION. [2] 


1. The accentuation of the text of the N. Τὶ is to be regulated, 
not so much by the authority of the oldest accented Codd. [to which 
Lipsius, as above, has attached too much importance], as by the 
established tradition of the grammarians; though much still re- 
mains doubtful, and, in the minute researches of later critics, 
attempts have sometimes been made to introduce subtilties. We 
select the following observations : 

a. According to the ancient grammarians (Moeris, p. 193), ie 
should be written ἐδέ in Attic authors only, and ἔδε in the remain- 
ing (later) writers ; just as λαβέ and λάβε are distinguished, Weber, 
Demosth. p. 173, cf. Bttm. 1.448. Griesb. has so printed (except 
in Gal. v. 2), and Lchm. everywhere. According to Bornem.’s 
conjecture (Rosenmiiller, exeg. Repert. II. 267), the word should 
be written ἰδέ when it occurs as an Imper. followed by an Acc. 
(Rom. xi. 22), and ἴδε when it is merely an exclamation. It is 
preferable, however, to follow the ancient grammarians. 


ea ee ee ee ee eee er 
- 





EK ee ee 





1 Of many words, as συλλαμβάνειν, συλλαλεῖν, συμβούλιον, συμπίπτειν, no such form 
at all has been observed ; of others, as συλλέγειν, συγκαλεῖν, συσταυροῦν, ἐγκαλεῖν, only 
in single passages. 

[? Cf. Lipsius, gramm. Unterss. iib. ἃ. bibl. Gracitit. S. 14 ff. S. 33 ff] 

7 





48 
6th ed. 


63 


50 
ith ed. 


50 § 6. ACCENTUATION. 


Ὁ. Numerals compounded with ἔτος should have the accent on 
the penult, according to the ancient grammarians (Thom. M. 859; 
Moschopul. in Sched.), when they are used of time; in every other 
case, on the last. Hence Acts vii. 23 τεσσαρακονταέτης χρόνος, and 
Acts xiii. 18 τεσσαρακονταέτη χρόνον : on the other hand, ἑκατον- 
ταετής, Rom. iv. 19 (ef. Jacobs, Anthol. III. p. 251, 253). This 
distinction, however, is not observed in the MSS., and the whole 
rule is doubtful, see Lob. 406sq. Ammonius, p. 136, exactly re- 
verses the distinction ; see Bremi, Aeschin. Otesiph. 369, ed. Goth. 

ce. Some would have κήρυξ and φοίνιξ accented κῆρυξ and φοῖνιξ 
(see Schif. Gnom. p. 215 sq. and Soph. Philoct. 562, cf. Ellendt, 
Lexic. Soph. I. 956 sq.) on the ground that, according to ancient 
grammarians, the v and z (in the Nom. Sing.) were pronounced 
short (Bekker, Anecd. III. 1429). Hm., Soph. Oed. R. p. 145, 
rejects this as contrary toallanalogy. Yet it isa question whether 
in later Greek the acceutuatio. κῆρυξ, φοῖνιξ is not to be preferred 
with the grammarians ; see Bttm. I. 167. Lehm. has followed it. 

ἃ. For ποῦς, as it stood in most of the older editions of the N. T., 
Knapp restored πούς, because the Gen. has ποδός with short 0; 
see Lob. Phryn. 765, and paralip. 93. 

6. Griesb. and others have incorrectly written λαίλαψ, ; it should 
be λαΐλαψ,, as the a is short. In the same way, Schulz (though 
not invariably) aud Lchm. write Oris for θλίψις (as λῆψις), 
because the first ὁ is long, not by position, but by nature. So 
Kripa, κρῖμα, χρῖσμα, μῖγμα, ψῦχος (cf. Reisig, de constr. antistr. 
p- 20; Lob. paralip. 418), στῦλος (Passow, under the word), (ῥῖψις 
and) ῥῖψαν Luke iv. 35. However, it has been rightly remarked 
by Fr., Rom. I. 107, that as according to the testimony of the 
ancient grammarians (Lob. Phryn. 107; ef. Dindorf, praef. ad 
Aristoph. Acharn. p. 15) the later Greeks in many words shortened 
the penult which was long in Attic, this return to Attic accentua- 
tion in the N. T. is not so unquestionably warranted. No editor 
[except Tdf. ed. vii.] has changed the regular θρῆσκος into θρησκός, 
though several Codd. so read ; see Bengel, app. crit. ad Jac. i. 26. 

f. Since the termination az is considered as short in accentuation 
(Bttm. I. 54), we must write θυμιᾶσαι Luke i. 9, and κηρῦξαι Luke 
iv. 19; Acts x. 42, for θυμιάσαι and κηρύξαι (as still written by 
Knapp); ef. Poppo, Thue. II. I. 151; Bornem. schol. p. 4. Griesb. 
and Knapp, in Acts xii. 14, still write erroneously ἑστᾶναι; as a is 
short. On the other hand συντετρῖφθαι Mark v. 4 has already 
been restored. . 








§ 6, ACCENTUATION. 51 


g. In the older editions, even in Knapp’s, ἐριθεία is written 
ἐρίθεια ; but, as the word is derived from ἐρεθεύω, the former ac- 
centuation is alone admissible; see Bttm. I. 141, Il. 401. So 
ἀρεσκεία, since it comes from ἀρεσκεύειν and not ἀρέσκειν, must 
not be accented ἀρέσκεια (as both Lehm. and Tdf. accent it). 

h. Lehm., agreeably to the undoubted analogy of γνώστης, κλά- 
στης, etc., changed κτιστῇ 1 Pet. iv. 19 (Knapp and Griesb.) into 
κτίστῃ. But Schott and Wahl have retained κτιστῇ ; yet see Beng. 
appar. p. 442. 

i. As to μισθωτός see Schif. Dem. Il. p. 88. The word φάγος, 
Matt. xi. 19; Luke vii. 34, is so accented even in other books 
besides the N.T., Lob. Phryn. 434, though from analogy we 
should expect φαγός, Lob. paralip. 185, who decides against Fr. 
Mr. p. 790 sqq. 

k. Lob. Phryn. 348, and Bttm. exc. I. ad Plat. Menon. hold 
that we should write εἶπον 1st Aor. Imp. Acts xxviii. 26, and not 
εἰπόν ; yet see reasons worthy of consideration on the other side 
by Wex, in the Jahrb. fir Philol. VI. 169. The former accentua- 
tion is limited to standard Attic. For εὐπόν in the Greek Bible, 
see the express testimony of Charax in Bttm. as above, who calls 
the accentuation Syracusan. The later editors have also retained 
this form. See, besides, Bornem. Acta, p. 234 sq. 

1. Names of Persons, originally oxytone adjectives or appellatives, 
throw back the accent for the sake of distinction ;! thus, Τύχικος 
not Τυχικός, ᾿Επαίνετος not ᾿Επαινετός (Lob. paral. 481), Φίλητος 


49 
Gih ed, 


64 


51 


not Φιλητός (see Bengel app. crit. on the passage), ΓΕραστος not ‘Het 


"Epactos, Βλάστος not βλαστός, Kapros not Kapzros, [Πύῤῥος not 
IIuppos, “Eppoyévns,] Σωσθένης (like Δημοσθένης) and 4ιοτρέφης 
3Jno.9. In the same way we write Τίμων for Τιμῶν, ᾿Ονησίφορος 
for ᾿Ονησιφόρος, Εὐμένης for Εὐμενής. On the other hand ‘Tyévacos 
remains unaltered, as in general there is ‘a reluctance to throw 
forward the accent in proper names. Hence even proparoxytones, 
as Tpodipos, ᾿Ασύγκριτος, [Etrvyos] retain their accent, Lob. as 
above. Yet those former examples also occur exceptionally with 
their original accent in ancient grammarians and in good Codd. 
(cf. Ταῦ, prolegg. Cod. Clarom. p. 22; cf. also Φιλητός in Euseb. 
H. E. 6, 21, 2) ; and the name Χριστός was never brought under 
the preceding rule. See, generally, Reiz de incl. accent. p. 116; 
Schaf. Dion. H. p. 265; Funkhinel, Demosth. Androt. p. 108 sq. ; 


1. 50. also geographical names; see Nobbe, schedae Ptolem. II. (Lips. 1842. 8vo.) 
Ρ.1784. ᾿ 


52 86. ACCENTUATION. 


particularly Lehrs, de Aristarchi studiis Homer. p. 276sq. (Cn 
the same way also ἐπέκεινα, ἐπίταδε, ὑπερέκεινα were accented, 
when these forms, compounded of ἐπ᾽ ἐκεῖνα, etc., were used as 
adverbs. ) 

m. Indeclinable priontal names are regularly accented on the 
last ; (cf. however, ᾿Ιούδα, Θάμαρ, Ζοροβάβελ, ᾿Ιωάθαμ, ᾿Ελεάξαρ, 
and the segholate form ᾿Ελιέζερ Luke iii. 29, ᾿Ιεζάβελ, Rev. ii. 20 
according to good Codd., Μαθουσάλα Luke iii. 87). The accent, 
even on long vowels, is for the most part the acute; as, ᾿Ισαάκ, 
ἸΙσραήλ, ᾿Ιακώβ, Τεννησάρ, Βηθσαϊδά, Βηθεσδά, ᾿Εμμαούς, Kadap- 
ναούμ. On the other hand, the MSS. have Κανᾶ, Γεθσημανῆ 
(though there is more authority for Γεθσημανεῖ, which Lchm. and 
Tdf. prefer ; see Fr. Mr. p. 626), also Βηθφαγῆ (cf. also Νινευῆ). 
Names which occur as indeclinable and as oxytone, Josephus, with 
whom declension predominates, makes barytone ; as,’ 4βίο (in the 
N.T.’Afia). The oldest MSS. are said (Tdf. prolegg. p. 36 [ed. 
vii. p. 61]) to give Πιλᾶτος, not Πιλάτος, as it is usually written 

65 even by Lchm. (and by Cardwell in his ed. of Joseph. bell. jud.). 

50 Yet even recent editors, agreeably to the Codd., write Κοριολάνος 

6h αἱ. (Plutarch. Coriol. ὁ. 11; Dion. H. 6, p. 414, Sylb.), Κικιννάτος 
(Dion. H. 10, p. 650), Topxovaros (Plut. Fab. Max. ο. 9; Dio C. 
34, c. 34), Kodpdros (Quadratus) Joseph. antt. 20, 6, ᾿Ονοράτος, 
etc. As to Τίτος and Tiros see Sinten. Plut. vit. II. 190. For 
Φηλιξ, not Φήλιξ, see Bornem. Acta, p. 198. 


The accentuation ὁμοῖος, ἐρῆμος, ἑτοῖμος, μῶρος (Boisson. Anecd. V. p. 94), 
which grammarians (Greg. Cor. p. 12, 20 sqq.) refer to the Ionians and 
earlier Attics, and which Bekker for instance follows, is certainly inad- 
missible even in Attic prose (Poppo, Thue. I. 213. II. 1.150; Bttm. 1. 55); 
still more so in the N.T. On the other hand, we must without doubt 

52 invariably write ἴσος ; cf. Bornem. Luke, p.4; Fr. Mr. p. 649. The N.T. 

tthe. MSS. have uniformly éow for εἴσω, though they have always εἰς and never 
és. Thuc., on the other hand, who mostly uses és, has εἴσω 1, 134; see 
Poppo, I. p.212. Recent editors reject ἔσω in Attic prose; see Schneider, 
Plat. civ. I. praef. p. 53. (As to the poets, see Elmsley, Eurip. Med. p. 
84 sq. Lips.) As to whether we should write in Jas. i. 15 ἀποκυεῖ or 
ἀποκύει, see below, ὃ 15 p. 88. 

In regard to the dim. τεκνίον as paroxytone, like τορθον in Athen. 2. 55, 
see Bttm. II. 441.; later editors, however, prefer τέχνιον in Athen. and 
Plat. rep. 6. 495 ἃ; In the Ν. T. the only part of τεκνίον that oceurs is 
the Plur. rexvia ; see Janson in Jahn’s Archiv VII. 487. Ποίμνιον (from 
ποιμένιον) should be unhesitatingly preferred to ποιμνίον, Janson as above, 
507. On ἁδροτής, βραδυτής as oxytones, see Bttm. II. 417. This accord- 





a ne 


 α ΨΙΝΝ. συν νὰ εν ε ον πὰ νυν δ 


NN CO = αὐῪΥ 





§ 6. ACCENTUATION. 53 


ing to the grammarians is the old accentuation, an exception to the rule; 
Lchm. has, on the other hand, ἁδρότητι 2 Cor. viii. 20, but βραδυτῆτα 
2 Pet. iii. 9. The later Greeks seem to have pronounced these words 
regularly as paroxytones; Reiz, accent. inclin. p. 109. On οὔκουν and 
οὐκοῦν, ἄρα and dpa, see ὃ 57, 3, pp. 510, 512. 


2. Many forms, as is well known, of the same spelling but dif- 
fering in meaning, are distinguished from each other by the 
accents; as, ejud sum and εἶμι eo (μύριοι ten thousand and μυρίοι 
innumerable, Bttm. 1. 278). The accented Codd. and even the 
editors of the N.T. sometimes waver between these two modes 
of accentuation. Thus for μένει 1 Cor. iii. 14, Chrysost., Theod., 
Vulg., etc., read μενεῖ (Fut.), which Knapp and Lehm. have ad- 
mitted into the text, cf. v.13; Heb. i. 11. In Heb. iii. 16, there 
is more authority for τίνες than τινές, and accordingly recent 
critics have almost unanimously preferred the former. For ὡςπερεὶ 
τῷ ἐκτρώματι 1 Cor. xv. 8, some Codd. have @szepei τῳ i.e. Tis 
ἐκτρώματι, Which Knapp has unnecessarily admitted into the text, 
(it is clearly the correction of persons who took offence at the use 
of the article here, and besides, has but little authority in its favor) ; 
so in 1 Thess. iv. 6 ἔν τῳ πράγματι, just as unnecessary. In 1 Cor. 
x. 19, many recent editors write ὅτε εἰδωλόθυτον τί ἐστιν, ἢ ὅτι 
εἴδωλον τί ἐστιν (Knapp and Mey.), because there is an emphasis 
on τὸ (antithetic to οὐδέν), and the other accentuation εἰδωλόθυτόν 
τι ἔστιν (Lchm.) produces ambiguity, since this might signify: 


66 


that there is anything offered to idols. Yet even supposing the 51 
former interpretation unquestionable, it is not necessary to reject Shed 


the usual accentuation, in so far as it gives the sense: that an 
offering to idols 2s something (not only appears to be, but is in 
reality). Critics still contend about the accentuation of John 
Vii. 34, 36, ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγώ, ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν or ὅπου εἶμι ἐγώ, 
etc. (as several Fathers and versions read); and in Acts xix. 38 
almost all recent editors have accented ἀγόραιοι (adj. signifying 
judicial) instead of ἀγοραῖοι. With regard to the first of these 


passages, John’s use of language (xii. 26; xiv. 3; xvii. 24) gives 53 


the preference to εἰμί (see Liicke on the passage, after Knapp, 
comm. isagog. p. 82sq.); but in the second, the acute would 
probably be correct, if we listen to Suidas, and with Kulencamp 
read in Ammon. p. 4: ἀγόραιος μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἡμέρα, ἀγοραῖος δὲ 
ὁ Ἑρμῆς ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀγορᾶς ; cf. Lob. paralip. p. 340. 

In the same way we must decide on Rom. i. 830, where some 
taking the word as active accent it θεοστύγεις, because θεοστυγεῖς 


τὰ ed 


67 


52 
6th ed. 


54 
ΤῺ ed. 


54 § 6. ACCENTUATION. 


must mean Deo exosi; but the analogy of adjectives like μητρό. 
κτονος aud μητροκτόνος (Bttm. 11. 482) proves nothing respecting 
adjectives in ys. Besides, Suidas says expressly that θεοστυγεῖς 
means both οἱ ὑπὸ θεοῦ μισούμενοι and οἱ θεὸν μισοῦντες ; (though 
he distinguishes θεομισής from θεομίσης in signification). The 
form θεοστυγεῖς, which alone is according to analogy, (compound 
adjectives in ys being oxytones,) is consequently the only correct 
form. As to the active sense of the word, however, Suidas does 
not appear to have quoted it as Greek usage, but only to have 
adopted it in the preceding passage of Paul. At least, this mean- 
ing of the word cannot be positively established from any Greek 
author; see Fr. Rom. I. 84 sqq. To be sure, the word occurs but 
a few times in all. On the other hand, there is good ground for 
the distinction between τροχός (wheel), which the text and the 
accented Codd. have in James iii. 6, and τρόχος (cowrse),as accord- 
ing to Grotius, Hottinger, Schulthess, etc., it should be read (see 
Schaf. Soph. 11. 307). The figure τροχὸς γενέσεως (joined to 
φλογίζουσαν is neither incorrect, nor in James particularly strange ; 
accordingly, no alteration of the accent is required. 


In regard to other passages where alterations of accent have been pro- 
posed, as 1 Cor. xiv. 7 (ὁμῶς for ὅμως), Col. i. 15 (πρωτοτόκος for mpwrd- 
toxos, see Mey.), or even James i. 17, πατὴρ τῶν φωτῶν for φώτων, these 
proposals have originated partly in doctrinal prejudices, partly in ignorance 
of the language. The last is positively absurd. 


3. It is still an unsettled question whether in prose (for to poetry 
peculiar considerations apply, cf. e.g. Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. I. 476) 
the enclitie forms of the pronoun, where.no emphasis is intended, 
should be joined to a preposition: whether, for instance, we should 
write παρά cov, ἔν μοι, εἴς pe, and not παρὰ aod, ἐν ἐμοί, eté. In 
the editions of the N. T., even in Lchm.’s (and elsewhere also in 
Greek books),we constantly find πρός με, πρός σε, but ἐν σοί, ἐν 
ἐμοί, ἐπὶ σέ, εἰς ἐμέ, ἐπ’ ἐμέ, οἷο. ; and only in connection with 
those enclitic forms in a few passages, Luke i. 43 ; Acts xxii. 8,18 ; 
xxiii. 22; xxiv. 19; ef. Bornem. on the last passage, (mostly at 
the end of a sentence) from Cod. B and some others the orthotoned 
pronouns are noted as various readings. Partly on the authority 
of ancient grammarians, and partly for the reason laid down by 
Hm. emend. gr. gr. I. 75 sq. that in such combinations the pronoun 
has the force of a noun, one must be disposed to decide generally 
for the orthotoned form; (only πρός με is defended by a portion 
of the grammarians, and occurs frequently in Codd.) see also Bttm. 








87. PUNCTUATION. 55 


I. 285 f. ; Jacobs, Anthol. Pal. I. praef. p. 32; Mtth. Eurip. Orest. 
384, Sprachl. I. 110; Krii. 76; also Ellendt, Arrian. 1.199. Yet 
Reisig, conject. in Aristoph. p. 56, and Bornem. Xen. conviv. p. 163, 
decide otherwise ; and it must be confessed that good MSS. of 
Greek authors (even besides the case of πρός we) often have the 
enclitic forms. Where the pronoun is emphatic, the enclitic forms 
of course do not occur; accordingly Knapp and Schulz properly 
give Jno. xxi. 22, τί πρὸς σέ. 

In editions of the N. T. text, the enclitic forms are in general employed 
agreeably to the established rules of grammarians; hence even Fr., not- 
withstanding Hermann’s authority (emend. rat. I. 71, 73), still writes 6 
mais μου (Matt. viii. 6), ἐξ ὑμῶν τινες (Jno. vi. 64), ὑπό τινων (Luke ix. 7), 
and not παῖς pod, ἐξ ὑμῶν τινές, ὑπὸ τινῶν. Lcehm.' began to accent the 
pronoun in the last two instances, and also to write ποῦ ἔστιν, Matt. ii. 2; 
per αὐτῶν ἐστίν, Mark ii. 19; but παῖς pov he left unchanged. He has 
been followed by Tdf. See, however, the judicious decision of Bttm. 1. 65 ἢ, 


§ 7. PUNCTUATION? 68 


1. In all editions of the N. T. down to that of Griesbach inclu- 
sive, the punctuation was not only deficient in consistency, but 
also suffered from the mistake that in order to facilitate the under- 
standing of the text editors punctuated too much, especially with 
commas. In this way, too, they forestalled the reader and imparted 
to the text their own exegetical views; cf. also Bttm. I. 68; 
Schleiermacher, Hermeneut. S. 76. 

The first person who directed keener attention to punctuation, 53 
and attempted to reduce it to fixed principles, was Knapp. He δ" δ 
has been followed, and with additional restrictions, by Schulz, 
Lehm., and Tdf. (the last adhering mostly to Lehm.):3 None of 
them, however, gave a general exposition of his principles. 55 

Punctuation was originally contrived as an aid in reading, espe- tthe 
cially in reading aloud, by marking the various resting-places for 


1 Yet he (Lchm.) has printed in Acts xxvii. 44, ἐπί τινων ; Jno. xx. 23, ἐάν τινων. 

? Cf. in particular Poppo, in the Allg. Lit. Zeit. 1826. 1 B.S. 506 ff. ; Muth. I. 172 ff. ; 
[Lipsius, as above, S. 81 ff.]. 

8 Among the editors of Greek authors I. Bekker has begun to punctuate with greater 
moderation and consistency, and W. Dindorf still more sparingly. Both, however, 
seem to have carried the exclusion of the comma too far. 

4 Rinck has proposed (Stud. u. Krit. 1842. 5. 554 f.) with regard to punctuation to 


return to the principles of the ancient Greek grammarians (Villoison, Anccd. II. 138 sqq-)- 
This, however, would be hardly practicable. 


56 § 7. PUNCTUATION. 


the voice. At present, however, independently of the circumstance 
that punctuation is indispensable in any extended system of vocal 
signs, its main object is to enable the reader in the act of reading 
to understand correctly, so far as this depends on perceiving the 
connection of the words (Bttm. as above). Punctuation therefore 
must be regulated by the logical, or rather — since the thought 
is clothed in language — by the grammatical and rhetorical, rela- 
tions of the words to each other. Hence it is too much to expect 
that the exegetical views of an editor should in no degree whatever 
be suggested by his punctuation, as he has to employ not merely 
commas, but colons and points of interrogation. 
As to the proper use of the colon and period in the text of the 
N. T. there can be no reasonable doubt; for, the omission of the 
colon before the direct words of a speaker (Lehm. Tdf.) and the 
substitution of a capital letter, is an innovation for which there 
appears to be no sufficient ground. On the other hand, the pro- 
priety of inserting or not inserting a comma is more uncertain. 
69 Thus much, however, is clear, that only a grammatically complete 
proposition? having a close connection with another proposition 
should be separated from it by a comma; and that for this special 
purpose the comma was devised. But a grammatically complete 
proposition comprehends not only a subject, a predicate, and a 
copula, — three elements that may be either expressed or under- 
stood, — but all qualifying words also which are introduced to 
define these main elements more precisely, and without which the 
54 proposition would convey but an imperfect sense. Hence it was a 
«hel. mistake in Griesbach e.g. to separate the subject from the verb by 
a comma whenever it was accompanied by a participle or consisted 
56 of a participle with adjuncts (Mark vii. 8; x. 49; Rom. viii. 5; 
tthe! 1 Jno. ii. 43 iii, 15). It is a mistake to divide 1 Thess. iv. 9 περὶ 
δὲ τῆς φιλαδελφίας, οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε γράφειν ὑμῖν, Matt. vi. 16 μὴ 
γίνεσθε, ὥςπερ οἱ ὑποκριταί (for μὴ γίν. conveys by itself no idea), 
v. 82 ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὑτοῦ, παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας 
(the last words contain the most essential part of the statement), 
xxii. 3 καὶ ἀπέστειλε τοὺς δούλους αὑτοῦ, καλέσαι τοὺς κεκλημένους 


1A grammatical proposition usually coincides with a logical, but not always. In 
Luke xii. 17, for instance, and in John vi. 29 (see above) we find, logically, two prop- 
ositions which, however, as the second is through the relative included in the first, form 
grammatically but one. The same remark applies to every condensed statement in 
which two clauses are contracted into one. Also in 1 Tim. vi. 3, εἴ tis ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ 
καὶ wh mposépxerat ὑγιαίνουσι λόγοις, we have, logically considered, two propositions ; but. 
grammatically, they appear in this construction as only one (see above, near the close). 


: 





§ 7. PUNCTUATION. 57 


etc., 1 Thess. iii. 9 τίνα yap εὐχαριστίαν δυνάμεθα τῷ θεῷ ἀνταπο- 
δοῦναι περὶ ὑμῶν, ἐπὶ πάσῃ TH χαρᾷ etc., 1 Cor. vii. 1 καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ, 
γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι, Acts v. 2 καὶ ἐνοσφίσατο ἀπὸ τῆς τιμῆς, 
συνειδυίης καὶ τῆς γυναικός. But the notion of a complete proposi- 
tion is still more comprehensive. Even a relative clause is to be 
considered as a part of the preceding proposition when the relative 
(pronoun or adverb) includes also the demonstrative, as Jno. vi. 29 
iva πιστεύσητε εἰς ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος, Matt. xxiv. 44 7) οὐ δοκεῖτε 
ὥρᾳ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρ. ἔρχεται, Luke xii. 17 ὅτι οὐκ ἔχω ποῦ συνάξω 
τοὺς καρπούς μου; or when there is an attraction of the relative, 
as Luke ii. 20 ἐπὶ πᾶσιν οἷς ἤκουσαν (οἷ. Schaf. Demosth. 11. 657) ; 
or when the relative clause is so necessary a complement to a 
foregoing word that both must be taken together to complete the 
sense, as Luke xii. 8 πᾶς ὃς ἂν ὁμολογήσῃ, Matt. xiii. 44 πάντα ὅσα 
ἔχει ; or when the preposition is not repeated before the relative, 
as Acts xiii..39 ἀπὸ πάντων ὧν οὐκ ἠδυνήθητε etc., Luke i. 25.1 So 
where the subject, predicate, or copula of a clause consists of 
several words connected by καί (or οὐδέν, all these words must be 
regarded grammatically as a compound whole, though logically 
they may form several clauses ; as, Mark xiv. 22 λαβὼν ὁ I. ἄρτον 
εὐλογήσας ἔκλασε καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς, Jno. vi. 24 I. οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκεῖ 
οὐδὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, Matt. xiii. 6 ἡλίου ἀνατείλαντος ἐκαυματίσθη 
καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ῥίζαν ἐξηράνθη (so correctly Lechm.), 1 Tim. 
vi. 3; Matt. vi. 26. (Otherwise in Mark xiv. 27 πατάξω τὸν ποιμένα, 
καὶ διασκορπισθήσεται τὰ πρόβατα, Matt. vii. 7 αἰτεῖτε, καὶ δοθήσεται 
ὑμῖν. The comma is here required, because two complete prop- 
Ositions are connected by καί. It is required also when two 
propositions are separated by 7.) 

Further, the comma is to be omitted between such clauses as 
Luke xxiv. 18 σὺ μόνος παροικεῖς ‘Iepove. καὶ οὐκ ἔγνως etc., since 
they both belong together and must be read without a pause, for 
only in their connection do they convey the proper sense. Also 
Mark xv. 25 ἦν dpa τρίτη καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν, and Matt. viii. 8 
οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς ἵνα μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην εἰςέλθῃς, must be written 
without punctuation. Finally, before ἀλλά the comma can be 


Py 


0 


properly omitted if the following clause is incomplete, and has, as 55 


it were, essential roots in the preceding; as, Rom. viii. 9 ὑμεῖς 


Se 6th of, 


οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ἀλλ’ ἐν πνεύματι, and 4 τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περι- 57 


πατοῦσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα (where Fr. retains the comma). 


1 To omit the comma before every relative clause (as e.g. Bekker does in his see τ 
of Plato), seems to me to be going too far. 
8 


ἸῺ ed, 


58 § 7. PUNCTUATION. 


2. On the other hand, we must not include too much in a gram. 
matically complete proposition, and so omit commas where they 
are necessary. Hence we remark : 

a. The Vocative is never a constituent part of the proposition 
with which it stands connected, but is to be regarded as its prelude, 
particularly when the proposition is in the first or third-person. 
Hence we punctuate in Jno. ix. 2 paBBi, τίς ἥμαρτεν, Mark xiv. 36 
aBBG ὁ πατήρ, πάντα δυνατά σοι, 2 Pet. iii. 1; Luke χν. 18 ; xviii. 
11, ete. 

b. A comma is properly put after a word which is the subject 
of a clause immediately following, beginning with a conjunction, 
and also of the principal clause; as, Jno. vii. 31 ὁ Χριστός, ὅταν 
ἔλθῃ,..... ποιήσει. Lchm. otherwise. 

c. If a grammatically complete clause be followed by a supple- 
mentary statement which might properly form a clause of itself, 
they must be separated by a comma; as, Rom. xii.-1 παρακαλῶ 
ὑμᾶς παραστῆσαι Ta σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν ..... τῷ θεῷ, τὴν 
λογικὴν λατρείαν (i.e. ἥτις ἐστὶν ἡ Noy. r.), 1 Tim. ii. 6 6 δοῦς ἑαυ- 
Tov ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων, TO μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις. So also in 

71 the case of participles, etc.; as, Col. ii. 2 ἵνα παρακ. αἱ καρδίαι 
αὐτῶν, συμβιβασθέντες ἐν ἀγάπῃ, Jno. ix. 13 ἄγουσιν αὐτὸν πρὸς 
τοὺς Φαρισαίους, τόν ποτε τυφλόν, Rom. viii. 4 ἵνα τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ 
νόμου πληρωθῇ ἐν ἡμῖν, τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν etc., Verse 
20; Eph. i. 12. 

d. When a single (logical) proposition contains a twofold con- 
oo ee (e.g. an anacoluthon), it must be written with a comma 
"4 ‘and read with a pause between the two parts; as, Jno. xv. 2 πᾶ 

pause betw parts ; as, ν 
κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ. φέρον καρπόν, αἴρει αὐτός. By the addition of αὐτό 
the words. πᾶν κλῆμα ..... Kap. become a casus pendens which 
is only the prelude to the proposition, and hence no one reads on ~ 

αι without a pause. Rev. iii. 12 ὁ νικῶν, ποιήσω αὐτὸν στύλον etc. ; 
Heb. ix. 23 ἀνάγκη τὰ μὲν ὑποδείγματα τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, τούτοις 
καθαρίζεσθαι. It is quite obvious that inserted complete clauses 
must be separated from the principal clause by commas, Luke ix. 

28; Acts v. T, and elsewhere. 

» ¢. Ifa sentence contains ἀσυνδέτως (without καί) several words 

following one another in the same construction, or simply enumer 

ated in succession, they must be separated from each other by 

commas; as, 1 Pet. v.10 αὐτὸς καταρτίσει, στηρίξει, σθενώσει, 

θεμελιώσει; Luke xiii. 14 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ ἀρχισυνάγωγος, ἀγανακτῶν 
δηυ sg wie ox ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς, ἔλεγε. 


§ 7. PUNCTUATION. 59 


If the use of the comma in all the cases specified be well founded, a 

subordinate point, a half comma, would be desirable, to separate to the 58 
eye those words which in a continuous proposition, though they do not ithed 
form, so to speak, a grammatical group, the reader might easily construe 56 
together. Thus, for instance, every one in reading Luke xvi. 10 ὁ πιστὸς μὰ 
ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ καὶ ἐν πολλῷ πιστός ἐστι will be apt to go wrong, as καί excites 
the expectation of a second expression co-ordinate with sen fe ἐν eX. The 
same holds true of the following passages: Rom. iv. 14 εἰ γὰρ οἱ ἐκ νόμου 
κληρονόμοι, Jas. v. 12 ἤτω δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ vai Kai τὸ ov ov, 1 Cor. xv. 47 ὃ 
πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός, Heb. vy. 12 ὀφείλοντες εἶναι διδάσκαλοι διὰ τὸν 
χρόνον πάλιν χρείαν ἔχετε τοῦ διδάσκειν ὑμᾶς, Jno. ν. ὃ ἦν τις ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖ 
τριάκοντα καὶ ὀκτὼ ἔτη ἔχων ἐν τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ, Rom. iii. 9 τί οὖν ; προεχόμεθα; 
οὐ πάντως (οὐ, πάντως). A half comma would at once remove all ambiguity. 
As, however, no such point exists, we might employ an ordinary comma, 
just as it is used in writing and print to distinguish ὅ,τι from ὅτ. Modern 
editors, however, do not punctuate at all in these passages, and this is 
perhaps most advisable. 


8. It is on many accounts desirable that: an editor’s exposition 
of a passage should not be introduced into the text by means of 72 
punctuation. This is easily avoided where punctuation is unnec- 
essary, as for instance in Rom. i. 17; vii. 21; Matt. xi.11. But 
there are passages where punctuation —a period, a colon, a comma, 
or even a mark of interrogation —is indispensable, and yet cannot 
be employed without thereby adopting some distinct exposition of 
the text. In Jno. vii. 21 sq., for instance, every editor must deter- 
mine whether to prefer ἕν ἔργον ἐποίησα καὶ πάντες θαυμάζετε. διὰ 
τοῦτο Μωσῆς δέδωκεν ὑμῖν περιτομήν etc., with Chrysost., Cyril, 
Euthym. Zigab., etc., or ἕν ἔργον ..... θαυμάζετε διὰ τοῦτο. Μωσῆς 
etc., with Theophyl. and nearly all modern editors and expositors. 
The former punctuation may still be defended, not indeed on the 
ground that John (as Schulz has shown) usually begins but never 
ends a clause with διὰ τοῦτο, but if the connection is understood 
thus: Z have done one work, and ye are all surprised; therefore 
(be it known to you) Moses gave you, etc. ; i.e. I will remove your 
surprise. Ye yourselves, according to the law of Moses, perform 
circumcision on the Sabbath. If, now, that ceremony, extending 
to but one part of the body, is not a desecration of the Sabbath, 
then the healing, affecting as it does the entire man, will certainly 
be allowable also. I acknowledge, however, that the usual punc- 
tuation produces a far more simple explanation of the passage, as 
Liicke also has shown. Heb. xi. 1 may be punctuated ἔστι δὲ 
πίστις, ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις etc., so that the emphasis fall on 


60 §8. RARE FORMS OF FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSIONS. 


’ 


ἔστι, and thus the existence of faith, in the manner indicated by 
59 the words in apposition, is historically proved. However, it now 
ith ef appears to me more proper to omit the comma after πίστις, 50 
57 that a definition of faith is given, the correctness of which is then 
ithe. illustrated by the succeeding historical examples; see Bleek on the 
passage. In punctuating Jno. xiv. 80 sq. expositors vary between 
ἐν ἐμοὶ οὐκ ἔχει οὐδέν, GAN iva..... ποιῶ. ἐγείρεσθε and οὐδέν " 
GAN Wwa..... ποιῶ, ἐγείρεσθε ; and in punctuating, if the text of 
the N.T. is to be punctuated at all, it will not be possible to 
evade this difference. Compare further, Rom. iii. 9; v.16; vi. 21; 
viii. 83; ix. 5; xi. 81; 1 Cor. i. 18; vi. 4; xvi. 8; Acts v. 35 
(see Kiihnél) ; Heb. iii. 2; Jas. ii. 1, 4,18; v. 3sq. | 
The same reason, viz. to avoid prejudicing the reader in advance in 
favor of any one interpretation, may have been the chief motive with recent 
editors (Tdf.) for excluding from the text altogether the parenthesis, for- 
merly the source of so much abuse. Lchm. had still retained it. See 
below, § 62. 


8 §8. RARE FORMS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSIONS. 


1. Masculine proper names in ἂς of the 1st Decl. — mostly ori- 
ental, but formed in accordance with well-known Greek analogy — 
end in the Gen. Sing. uniformly in @; as, ᾿Ιωαννᾷ Luke iii. 27, 
᾿Ιωνᾶ Matt. xii. 39; Jno.i. 43, ete. Κλωπᾶ Jno. xix. 25, Στεφανᾶ 
1 Cor. i. 16; xvi. 15, Σ'κευᾶ Acts xix. 14, Κηφᾶ 1 Cor. i. 12, Σατανᾶ 
Mark i. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 9, ᾿Επαφρᾶ Col. i. 7 

Likewise those ending in unaccented as make the Gen. in a; 
as, Καϊάφα Jno. xviii. 18, "Avva Luke iii. 2, “Apéra 2 Cor. xi. 32 
(Joseph. antiqq. 17, 3,2; 18, 5,1), Βαρνάβα Gal. ii. 1; Col. iv. 
10, ᾿4γρίππα" Acts xxv. 23; cf. Joseph. antiqq. 16, 2,3; 16,6, 7; 
20, 7, 1, etc. (Σ λα Joseph. vit. 17, Mar@eda Acta apocr. p. 183), 
᾿Ιούδα often. 

The same form in proper names is often used by Attic authors ; 
as, Μασκὰ Xen. An. 1, 5, 4, Γωβρύα Xen. C.5,2,14, Κομάτα Theocer. 
δ, 150a., cf. Georgi, Hierocr. I. 156; Krii. 42; Ellendt, Arrian. 
Al. I. 83; V. Fritzsche, Aristoph. I. 566; and on Boppa, Luke 
xiii. 29, Rev. xxi. 13, especially Bttm. I. 147,199; Bekker, Anecd. 
Ill. 1186. 

1 So also Θωμᾷ in the Act. Thom., Λουκᾷ Euseb. H. E. 8, 24, ‘Epua Euseb. 8, 3. 

2 On the other hand, we find occasionally ᾿Αγρίππου in Joseph. (antt. 18, 7, 1 and 2; 


18, 8, 8, etc.) and Euseb. H. Εἰ. 2,19. Codd. of Xenoph. also vary between Γωβρύου 
and Γωβρύα. 





§ 8. RARE FORMS OF FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSIONS. 61 


On the other hand, those in as pure have the usual Attic form 
(e.g. Αἰνείας. in ov (Lob. prolegg. pathol. p.487 sqq.) ; as, ’Avdpéov 
Mark i. 29; Jno. i. 45 (Joseph. antiqq. 12, 2,3; Acta apocr. p. 158, 


159), ᾿Ηλίου Luke i. 17; iv. 25, ᾿Ησαΐου Matt. iii. 3; xiii. 14; Acts 60 


xxviii. 25 and elsewhere, ‘Jepewiov Matt. ii. 17; xxvii. 9, Ζαχαρίου 
Matt. xxiii. 35; Luke i. 40 and elsewhere, Avoaviov Luke iii. 1, 
Βαραχίου Matt. xxiii. 35. So always in Joseph. ’Ovias, ‘Oviov ; in 
other places Τωβίου (Geo. Syncell. chronogr. p. 164; but usually 


Tth ed 


58 


Τωβία). See, in general, Geo. Choerobosci dictata in Theodosii δι ed 


canon. ed. Gaisford, I. p. 42. 


Several names of places that might have been declined according to the 
1st Decl. are indeclinable in the N. T.; as, Kava (Dat. Jno. ii. 1, 11; Ace. 
iv. 46), Βηθσαϊδά, Βηθφαγή, Τολγοθᾶ, Ῥαμᾶ. Βηθαβαρᾶ Jno. i. 28 would 
not come under this head, since Origen uses it as a Neut. Plur.; recent 
editors have printed ἐν Byfavig. Λύδδα is unquestionably inflected as 
feminine in Acts ix. 38 (Avddns), on the other hand in vs. 32 and 35 Λύδδα 
as Neut. Acc. has respectable Codd. in its favor; cf. my RW. II. 30. 

Words in apyos! commonly follow in the N. T. and later Greek the first 
declension, and end in apyys;” as, πατριάρχης Heb. vii. 4, Plur. Acts vii. 8, 
9, coll. 1 Chron. xxvii. 22, τετράρχης Matt. xiv. 1; Luke iii. 19; ix. 7, 
coll. Joseph. antiqq. 18, 7, 1, rerpapyar Euseb. H. E. 1, 7, 4; πολιτάρχης 
Acts xvii. 6; ἐθνάρχης 2 Cor. xi. 32, coll. 1 Mace. xiv. 47, ἐθνάρχῃ 1 Macc. 
xv. 1, 2, ἐθνάρχην Joseph. antiqq. 17, 11, 4, ἐθνάρχας Euseb. Const. 1, 8; 
ἀσιάρχης, hence ἀσιαρχῶν Acts xix. 31, and ἀσιάρχην Euseb. Η. E. 4, 15, 
11 (Asiarcha, Cod. Theodos. 15, 92) ; ἑκατοντάρχης Acts x. 1, 22; xxi. 32; 
xxii. 26, coll. Joseph. Ὁ. 1. 3, 6, 2, éxarovrdpyn Acts xxiv. 23; xxvii. 31; 
Matt. viii. 13 where, however, a few Codd. have éxarovrdpyw, just as in 
Joseph. Ὁ. j. 2, 4. 3, ἑκατόνταρχον is found besides ἑκατοντάρχην. On the 
other hand, ἑκατόνταρχος occurs almost without var. in the following pas- 
sages: Matt. vili.5, 8; Luke vii. 6; Acts xxii. 25; (the Gen. Sing. Luke 
vii. 2, and Plur. Acts xxiii. 23, the former with the same accent and the 
latter with a circumflex on the last, may be cases of ἑκατοντάρχης also). 


1 The MSS. even of ancient Greek authors vary, indeed, between apxos and apxns, 
but later critics, in them, give the form apxos the preference ; cf. Bornem. Xen. cony. 1,4; 
Poppo, Xen. Cyrop. 2, 1, 22, p. 109. This also corresponds best with the etymology 
(from ἀρχός). So τόπαρχος, Aeschyl. Choéph. 662. Tvuvacidpxns, however, is un- 
doubtedly the correct reading in Aeschin. Tim. ed. Bremi I. 23. 

2 That this was the predominant termination in the Apostolic age appears further 
from the circumstance that the Romans in rendering such words into Latin gave to 
them this or a similar form, when they might just as well have chosen the form in archus. 
Hence Tetrarches, Hirt. bell. Alex. c. 67 ; Liv. epitom. 94; Horat. serm. 1, 3, 12; Lucan. 
7,227; Alabarches, Cic. Attic. 2,17; Juven. Satir. 1,130; Toparcha, Spartian. in Ha- 
drian.13; Patriarcha, Tertull. de anim. 6.7, 55, and elsewhere. Cf. Schdéf. Demosth. IL 
151. Byzantine authors still more fully attest the predominance of this form. 


74 


62 §8. RARE FORMS OF FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSIONS. 


Finally, for στρατοπεδάρχῃ Acts xxviii. 16 (Const. Man. 4412, etc.) the 
better Codd. have otparoreddpyw. Elsewhere, besides, in the Greek Bible 
and in authors of the first Christian centuries we find the following vouchers 
61. for the form apyys: γενεσιάρχης Wisd. xiii. 3, κωμάρχης Esth. ii. 3, κυπριάρχης 
Ith αἱ, 2 Mace. xii. 2, τοπάρχης Gen. xli. 34; Dan. iii. 2, 3; vi. 7; Euseb. H. E. 
1, 13, ὃ, θιασάρχης Lucian. peregr. 11, μεράρχης Arrian. Tact. p. 30, φαλαγ- 
yépxns ibid. p. 30, εἰλάρχης ibid. p. 50, ἐλεφαντάρχης 2 Mace. xiv. 12; 
3 Mace. v. 4, 45, ἀλαβάρχης Joseph. antiqq. 19, 5, 1, γενάρχης Lycophr. 1307; 
59 Joseph. antiqq. 1, 13, 4, ταξιάρχης Arrian. Al. 2, 16, 11; Euseb. Constant. 
ith ed. 4, 63 (though ibid. 4, 51 and 68 also ταξίαρχος ; see Heinichen}index p. 585), 
ἰλάρχης Arrian. Alex. 1, 12,11; 2, 7,5, συριάρχης Acta apocr. p. 52, νομάρχης 
Papyr. Taur. p. 24, γειτονιάρχης Boisson. Anecd. V. 73. To quote from 
the Byzantine writers all the compounds of this kind would be endless ; 
examples occur in almost every page. Of other compounds the form in 
apxos is exclusively used in the N. T.; as, χιλίαρχος in all passages (22). 
75 On the other hand see χιλιάρχης in Arrian. Al. 1, 22,9; 7, 25, 11 (Ellendt, 
Arrian. IT. 267), besides in Sept. Ex. xviii. 11, 25 ; Deut. i. 15; Num. i. 16, 
where we find also dexddapyos (δεκαδάρχαι Arrian. Tact. p. 98). In the 
Byzantines κένταρχος Cedren. 1, 705, 708, νυκτέπαρχος Leo Diac. 6, 2, must 

be considered as isolated instances. 

Dialectic inflection in the 1st Decl. occurs in Acts x. 1; xxi. 31 ; xxvii. 1, 
where we find the Ionic form σπείρης from σπεῖρα, only in the first passage 
with some var. in the Codd. (cf. Arrian. acies contra Alanos, pp. 99, 100, 

102) ; and in good Codd. we find payaipys Rev. xiii. 14; Heb. xi. 34, 37, 
and μαχαίρῃ Rev. xiii. 10; Luke xxii. 49; Acts xii. 2 (cf. Ex. xv. 9) [like- 
Wise πρώρης Acts xxvii. 80 in A and Sin., which Lchm. has adopted]; cf. 
also Σαπφείρῃ Acts v. 1 (Lchm. Σαπφείρᾳ), and συνειδυίης v. 2, according 
to good Codd. See Mtth. I. 183. 

2. In the Second Declension the following forms occur: 

a. ᾿Απολλώ in Acc. Sing. for ᾿Απολλών from ᾿Απολλώς (Acts 
xviii. 24) Acts xix. 1; 1 Cor. iv. 6 (the Gen. regularly ᾿Απολλώ 
1 Cor. iii. 4; xvi. 12); ef. Bttm. 1. 155,199. Good Codd. (Bttm. 
I. 155; Krii. 45) have Acts xxi. 1 τὴν Κῶ (1 Mace. xv. 23 ; Joseph. 
antiqq. 14, 7,2), where the usual form τὴν Κῶν has but little 
authority. However, together with Kas, Κῶ is found as indeclin- 
able in Strabo 10, 489; ef. further, Duker, Thue. 8, 41. 

b. Noi, as Dat. (after the 3d Decl.) of vods, 1 Cor. i. 10; xiv. 
15; Rom. vii. 25; and νοός as Gen. for vod, 1 Cor. xiv.19. Greek 
authors, instead of νοΐ, usually employ vow, or contr. νῷ. Not 
occurs besides only in Simplic. ad Aristot. phys. 31, 25; Philo 1. 
63 (Bekker, Anecd. III. p. 1196), the Byzantines (e.g. Malalas, see 
index in Bonn ed. Theophan. 28), and the Fathers; see Lob. 
Phryn. 453; Boissonade, Marin. p. 93sq. Likewise moos Acts 


§ 8. RARE FORMS OF FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSIONS. 63 


xxvii. 9, as Gen. (for πλοῦν), as in Arrian. peripl. p. 176; Malalas, 
5, p. 94; Cinnam. p. 86; cf. Lob. as above. 

c. The Vocative θεέ Matt. xxvii. 46 without var. (Judg. xxi. 3; 
Wisd. ix.1; Acta Thom. 25, 45,57; Τιμόθεε 1 Tim. i. 18; vi. 20), 
of which scarcely an instance is to be found in Greek authors ; cf. 
Bttm. I. 151. Even the Sept. has usually Voc. θεός. 

d. We find the Plur. of ὀστέον without contraction ὀστέα Luke gg 
xxiv. 39, and ὀστέων Matt. xxiii. 27; Heb. xi. 22, and elsewhere. ‘hed. 
The latter, however, occurs not very unfrequently in Greek prose: 
Lucian. necyom. 15; Plat. Loer. 102 ἃ. (cf. besides, Eurip. Orest. 
404; Troad. 1177). ᾿Οστέα is more rare; ef. Plat. Locr. 100 b. ; 
Aristot. anim. 3, 7; Menand. ed. Meineke, p. 196. 


As Metaplasms we must notice: 

1. ‘O δεσμός Plur. τὰ δεσμά Luke viii. 29; Acts xvi. 26; xx. 23, only 60 --- 
once of δεσμοί Phil. i. 13, everywhere without var. In Greek authors, δἰ οὗ, 
too, δεσμοί is more rare than δεσμά Thom. Mag. p. 204 (Bttm. I. 210; cf. 76 
Kiihnél, ad Act. p. 558). 

2. From σάββατον we find only Gen. Sing. and Plur. and Dat. Sing., 
but the Dat. Plur. σάββασι (which occurs also in Meleag. 83, 4) comes, 
according to Passow, from a Sing. σάββατ, Gen. σάββατος. 

3. The Mase. otros has in the Plur. (besides σῖτοι) σῖτα Acts vii. 12 var., 
as often in Greek writers. (A Sing. σῖτον was never in use; see Schiif. 
Soph. Elect. 1366.) The best Codd., however, [Sin. also] give in Acts 
vii. 12 σιτία, which has now been received into the text. 

In regard to gender be it observed : 

1. λιμός in Luke xv. 14; Acts xi. 28, according to some good Codd. 
(also according to a very few authorities in Luke iv. 25), is construed as 
Fem., agreeably to the Doric dialect (Lob. 188); cf. Malalas 3, p. 60. 
See Bornem. ad Acta, as above. 

2. Baros is Mase. in Mark xii. 26 (though not without var.), and Fem. 
in Luke xx. 387; Acts vii. 35, (Fr. Mr. p. 532). Compare in general, 
Lob. paralip. 174 sq. (ἡ πηλός Const. Man. 2239, 2764, etc.). _ 

8. Instead of ὃ νῶτος, the later form, some Codd. in Rom. xi. 10 have τὸ 
νῶτον, the form used by the earlier writers ; see Fr. on the passage. 


1 We find in the Sept. the Dat. Plur. also of this form, σαββάτοις 1 Chron. xxiii. 31; 
2 Chron. ii. 4 ; viii. 13; Ezek. xlvi. 3, as well as in Joseph. antt. 16, 6, 4, together with 
σάββασι. In the N. T. it occasionally appears among the var. as in Matt. xii. 1, 12, 
according to good Codd. 


TT 


63 
τὰ οἱ, 


61 
6th ed. 


64 § 9. RARE FORMS OF THE THIRD DECLENSION. 


89. RARE FORMS OF THE THIRD DECLENSION. 


Among these belong, 1. In the Singular : 

a. The Genitive ἡμίσους Mark vi. 23, from the Neut. ἥμισυ (used — 
as a substantive), instead of the usual form ἡμίσεος ; cf. Dio Chr. 
T, 99; Schwartz, comment. p. 652; Bttm. I. 191. 

b. The Dative’ γήρει (lonic), for γήρεϊ Luke i. 36 (as οὔδει from 
ovdos in Homer), for which the text. recept. has γήρᾳ ;. οἵ. Ps. 
xci. 15; Sir. viii. 6; Theophan. p. 86, and the Fathers, e.g. Theo- 
doret. in Ps. exix. (ed. Hal. I. 1393); Fabric. Pseudepigr. II. 630, 
747 ; Boissonade, Anecd. III. 19. 

c. The Accusative ὑγιῆ Jno. v. 11,15; Tit. ii. 8 (Lev. xiii. 15.). 
The Attic authors use another contraction, ὑγιᾶ, but the former 
occurs also in Plat. Phaed. 89d.,and similar forms in other passages 
(Mtth. I. 288). 

ἃ. ᾿Αρτέμων, Acts xxvii. 40, has, according to A [Sin.] and sev- 
eral other Codd., ἀρτέμωνα, which Lehm. has adopted (cf. γλήχωνι 
Homer. Cerer. 209), as also Lob. Soph. Ai. p. 171, in preference 
to the usual form ἀρτέμονα : appellativi declinatio sine dubio eadem 
quae proprii (Anacr. fragm. 27, and Fischer’s note). 

2. In the Plural : 

a. The Accusative in εἷς (instead of éas) from Nom. Sing. in evs, 
e.g. γονεῖς, Matt. x. 21; Luke ii. 27; γραμματεῖς, Matt. xxiii. 34, 
etc. So also in Attic writers ; e.g. Xen. (see Poppo, Cyrop. p. 32 
sq.; Weber, Dem. p. 492 and 513), though the Atticists reject it ; 
see Mtth. I. 235. 

Ὁ. The Dative of the Numeral δυσίν (Thom. M. 253), Matt. 
xxii. 40; Luke xvi. 13; Acts xii. 6, follows wholly the analogy 
of the 3d Decl. It occurs also in Thuc. 8, 101 (δυσὶν ἡμέραις), 
in Plutarch, Aristotle, Hippocrates, and others, instead of the 
usual δυοῖν ; see Lob. 210 sq.; Bttm. I. 276. In the Genitive, δύο 
is always indeclinable; Matt. xx. 24; xxi. 31; Jno.i. 41; 1 Tim. 
v. 19, etc., as sometimes in Greek authors, e.g. Lucian. dial. mort. 
4,1; Aesop. 145, 1. (Mtth. I. 337). 

c. As uncontracted forms appear—contrary to the general 
usage — ὀρέων Rev. vi. 15 (Ezek. xi. 10; 1 Kings xx. 28; Isa. 
xiii. 4, etc.), and yevAéov Heb. xiii. 15 (Prov. xii. 14; xxxi. 31; 
Wisd. i. 6; Ecclus. xxii. 27, etc.), the other cases being deelined 
regularly. Such genitives, however, are not unfrequent even in 
Greek prose; cf. Georgi, Hierocr. I. 145; Poppo, Xen. C. p. 213; 





a ΦΡΎΨΨΨΨΨΨ a ea es ee ee ee ΤΠ 


ee ara ee eee ro ee ΤΣ Ὁ: 





§ 9. RARE FORMS OF THE THIRD DECLENSION. 65 


Jacobs, Achill. Tat. 2,1. As to the poets, see Ellendt, Lexic. 
Soph. II. pp. x. xii. 

ἃ. The contraction of the Neut. ἡμίση Luke xix. ὃ tis a sub- 
stantive, cf. Theophr. ch. 11), to which applies what we have said 
above of ἡμίσους. The usual form is ἡμίσεα (which is the reading 
here in some Codd. ; Tdf., however, has ἡμίσεια from B L [Sin.], 
ef. Bttm. I. 248); οἵ, Fischer, prol. p. 667; Bttm. 1. 191. 

e. The contracted Gen. πηχῶν Jno. xxi. 8; Rev. xxi. 17, in- 
stead of πηχέων (as the Cod. Al. has in the first passage [and Cod. 
Sin. in the last]). Πηχῶν is a later form (see Lob. p. 246), yet 
it occurs in Xen. An. 4, 7, 16, and frequently in Plutarch. 


From κλείς we have the more common form κλεῖδα Luke xi. 52 and in 
afew Codd. Rey. iii. 7; xx. 1 (frequently in Sept. Judg. ili. 25; Isa. xxii. 22) 
for (the Attic) κλεῖν (Thom. M. p. 536; Lob. 460). Yet in the Plur. 
κλεῖδας, Matt. xvi. 19, has more authority than κλεῖς, which, on the other 
hand, in Rey, i. 18 is the best attested reading. Just so ἔριδες 1 Cor. i. 11 
and épets (as Nom. and Acc.) 2 Cor. xii. 20, occur; in Gal. v. 20, however, 
the correct reading is probably ἔρις. Kpéas has the regular Plur. contrac- 
tion (Bttm. I. 196), κρέα, Rom. xiv. 21; 1 Cor. viii. 13 (Exod. xvi. 8, 12), 
as in Xen. C. 1, 3, 6; 2, 2,2. On the other hand, κέρας has κέρατα Rev. 
v. 6; xiii. 1, 11; xvii. 12 (Amos iii. 14), κεράτων Rev. ix. 13; xiii. 1 (1 Kings 
i. 50; ii. 29), and never the contracted xépa, κερῶν (Bttm. I. as above ; 
Bekker, Anecd. III. p. 1001). Lastly, τέρας has always τέρατα Matt. 
xxiv. 24; Acts ii. 43; v.12; Jno. iv. 48; τεράτων, Rom. xv. 19, instead 
of τέρα, τερῶν, the forms which pass for Attic; see Moeris, p. 899 ; Bttm. 
as above. 

Note 1. In 1 Thess. v. 3 (Isa. xxxvii. 3) we find ὠδίν for ddis, Nom. 
Sing. of ὠδῖνες, like SeA¢/v in later writers not unfrequent, see Bttm. I. 162 
(cf. also κλειδίν Const. Porph. 14, 208). 

Note 2. In several passages in good MSS. πλοῦτος, contrary to general 
usage, is used as Neuter, Eph. ii. 7; iii. 8,16; Phil. iv. 19; Col. ii. 2 
(Acta apocr. p. 76), a peculiarity probably originating in the language of 
the people, as the modern Greeks use indiscriminately both τὸ πλοῦτος and 
ὃ πλοῦτος, see Coray, Plutarch. vit. II. p. 58; Isocr. Π. 103, 106. In the 
same way we find τὸ ζῆλος 2 Cor. ix. 2 in Codd. B [and Sin.]; Phil. iii. .6 
in A B [Sin.] (Clem. ep. p. 17 Ittig.) and perhaps τὸ ἦχος Luke xxi. 25, 
(if the Gen. be accented ἤχους, as it is by Lchm.), according to good Codd., 
as Malal. p. 121, 436. Compare in later writers, τὸ κλάδος Theophan. 
contin. ed. Bekker, p. 222; see, in general, Benseler, Isocr. Areopag. p. 
106. On the other hand, we find in later writers ὁ δεῖπνος Luke xiv. 16 
B D; see Hase, ad Leon. Diac. p. 239 ; Schiif. ind. Aesop. pp. 128, 163; 
Boisson. Herod. Epim. p. 22, and Anecd.I. 51; and 6 τεῖχος Ducas p. 266 


Bonn.; Acta apocr. p. 84. The heteroclite σκότος (Poppo, Thuc. I. 225) 
9 


| 


[ 
78 


64 
Tth ed. 


62 
6th ed. 


66 §10. FOREIGN AND INDECLINABLE WORDS. 


is found only once as Masc. (Heb. xii. 18 σκότῳ, but not certain), else 
always Neut. (σκότους, σκότει) without a single var. noted. As to ἔλεος, 
which the Sept. sometimes use as Masc. (so too Philo I. 284), in N.T. 
MSS. the Neut. predominates (var. only Matt. ix. 13; xii. 7; xxiii. 23; 
Tit. πὶ. 5; Heb. iv. 16). Θάμβος has, Acts iii. 10, Gen. θάμβου in C. 
Note 38. The MSS. have several instances of v subjoined to the Acc. 
Sing. in a or ἢ (ἐλπίδαν, συγγενῆν, οἵ. Sturz, dial. alex. p. 127; Lob. paralip. 
p- 142), as Matt. ii, 10 ἀστέραν, Codd. [Sin* ἘΠΕῚ Ephr. Jno. xx. 25, χεῖραν 
Te Alex., and in same Cod. Rey. xii. 13 ἄρσεναν, xiii. 14 εἰκόναν, xxii. 2 
μῆναν, Acts xiv. 12 Atay according to ‘several Codd., and ‘Rom. xvi. 11 
συγγενῆν, Heb. vi. 19 ἀσφαλῆν (this also in Codd. Ephr. and Cantab.) ; Rev. 
i. 13 ποδήρην. Likewise in the Byzantine writers we find similar forms 
(see Index to Leo Grammat. p. 532; Boisson. anecd. V. 102), as also in 
the Apocr. (Tdf. de evang. apocr. p. 137), and in Rev. Lchm. has received 
into the text the forms quoted above. This subjoined v is probably not 
to be considered, with Ross, as an original termination (transmitted in the 
popular speech), but as an arbitrary extension of the v usual in the Acc. 
of many sorts of words (Mtth. 208), Lob. paralip. as above. In adjectives 
of two terminations in ys, this form is said to be Aeolic, Mtth. 289. More- 
over, see also Bornem. on Acts as above. 


79 810, FOREIGN WORDS AND WORDS WHICH ARE INDECLINABLE. 


1. In the case of certain Hellenized Oriental names the Sept. 

and the N. T. writers have introduced a simple mode of inflection, 

65 according to which the Gen., Dat., and Voe. coincide for the most 
τὰ οἱ, part in one and the same form, and the Acc. is designated by ν. 
To this class of nouns belong the following: ’Incods, Gen. ᾿Ιησοῦ 
Matt. xxvi. 69, Dat. Ἰησοῦ Matt. xxvi. 17,1 Voc. ᾿Ιησοῦ Mark 

i. 24, Ace. ᾿Ιησοῦν Matt. xxvi. 4; Acts xx. 21. Acvi or Aevis 
(Luke v. 29), Acc. Aeviv Mark ii. 14. ᾿Ιωσῆς Gen. ᾿Ιωσῆ Matt. 
xxvii. 56; Luke iii. 29, etc. (but B D and L have everywhere in 
Mark "Iwofjros), Bttm. 1.199. Like ᾿Ιησοῦς is declined the Egyp- 
tian name Θαμοῦς (Plat. Phaed. 274d.) Mtth.1.198. The word 
Μωσῆς (ΜΜωῦσῆς) is declined in two ways. The Gen. (also in the 

63 Greek Fathers and Byzant. authors) is invariably Μωσέως (cf. 
δ οἰ, Diod. S. Eel. 34, p. 194, Lips.). As to the Dat., however, even 
good Codd. vary between Mace? (also in Euseb. and Theophan.) 
and Μωσῇ, cf. Matt. xvii.4; Markix.5; Luke ix. 33; Jno. v. 46; 

ix. 29; Acts vii. 44; Rom. ix. 15; 2 Tim. iii. 8. The Acc. is 


1 Along with these forms, the Codd. of the Sept. often have for the Dat. (Deut. iii. 
21, 28; xxxi. 23) and even for the Gen. (Exod. xvii. 14) the form Ἰησοῖ. 





—— ee 








810. FOREIGN AND INDECLINABLE WORDS. 67 


Μωσῆν, Acts vi. 11; vii. 35; 1 Cor. x. 2; Heb. iii. 3 (Diod. 5.1, 
94) ; only Luke xvi. 29 has without var. Macéa (as Euseb. H. E. 
1, 3, and often in Clem. Alex., Geo. Syncell., Glycas, etc.). All 
these forms, with the exception of Μωσέως, may be derived un- 
hesitatingly from Nom. Mos (see the analogies Bttm. I. 198, 
910, 221). For Μωσέως, a Nom. Μωσεύς has been demanded ; 
but it does not occur, and after all it is not necessary, since “Apys 
also has sometimes Gen. “Apews (Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. I. 224). 
Outside of the N.T.the Gen. Μωσῆ is also found in LXX. and 
Geo. Phrantz., and Mood in Bauer, glossar. Theodoret. p. 269. 
Moo occurs as Voc. in Exod. iii. 4. "Μανασσῆ in Matt. i. 10 
has Acc. Μανασσῆ, according to others ανασσῆν. 


The name of Solomon in text. rec. is declined Σολομῶντα Matt. i. 6, 
Σολομῶντος Matt. xii. 42; Luke xi. 31; Jno. x. 23; Acts iii. 11; v. 12 
(like Ξενοφῶν, Ξενοφῶντος). But the better MSS. have Σολομῶνος, Σολο- 
pava, see Wetsten. I. 228; and this, being according to analogy and also 
the received form in Joseph. ed. Havercamp, deserves probably to be 
admitted into the text, since the termination ὧν, Gvros implies derivation 
from a participle (Bttm. I. 169; Lob. paralip. 347). But then we must - 
write in the Nom. (not Σολομῶν, as Lehm. even has printed, but) Σολομών 80 
agreeably to the better authorities,! like Βαβυλών, etc. (cf. also Pappelb. 
Cod. Diez. p.9). Ποσειδῶν (Ποσειδῶνος), being contracted from Ποσειδάων, 
is not analogous. In the Sept. Σολομών is indeclinable ; see 1 Kings iv. 

7, 29; v. 12, 15, 16; vi. 18, and elsewhere. 


2. Many Hebrew proper names which might have been inflected 
according to the 3d Decl. are used in the Sept. and in the N. T. 
as indeclinable ; e.g. “Aapwv Gen., Heb. vii. 11; ix.4; Dat., Exod. 66 
vii. 9; Acts vii. 40; Acc., Exod. vii. 8; cf. in particular Matt. i. Τὰ εἰ, 
and Luke iii. 23 sqq.; besides Συμεών Luke iii. 80, Σαλμών Luke 
iii. 32, Κεδρών Jno. xviii. 1 var. So ‘Iepryd, Gen. Deut. xxxii. 49; 
Matt. xx. 29; Heb. xi. 830; Acc., Luke x. 30; xviii. 35 (Glye. 
Ρ. 804).2 “Ἱερουσαλήμ, for which, however, in Matt. Mark and 
Jno. the Grecized form “Ἱεροσόλυμα might on the authority of MSS. 
be preferred, which is regularly declined as Neut., Matt. iv. 25; 64 
Mark iii. 8; Luke xxiii. 7; Jno. ii. 23. It is Feminine only in ‘the. 


1In Glycas Bekker has had printed, even in the new edition, Σολομῶντος, Σολομῶντα, 
but for the Nom. Σολομών. 

2 Elsewhere, on the other hand, we find a twofold mode of declining the word: a. 
Gen. Ἱεριχοῦ 3 Esr. vy. 44, Dat. Ἱεριχῷ Procop. de aedif. 5,9; Theodoret. V. p. 81, 
Hal., or Ἱεριχοῖ Joseph. b. j. 1, 21, 4. Suid. under ᾿Ωριγενής ; and ὁ. from Ἱερικοῦς 
(Ptol. 5, 16, 7), Gen. Ἱερικοῦντος Strabo 16, 763, Acc. Ἱερικοῦντα 16, 760, and usually 
in Josephus. 


68 § 11. INFLECTION AND COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES. 


Matt. ii. 8 (1. δ ). The Sept. has only the form ‘Iepouvcadnp ; 
Joseph., on the contrary, ‘IepoooAupa. To πάσχα, Luke ii. 41; 
Jno. ii. 23; as in Sept.t So also (τὸ) σύκερα Luke i. 15, and in 
Sept. Lev. x. 9; Num. vi. 3; Isa. xxiv. 9, etc. (Euseb. praep. ev. 
6,10, has Gen. σίκερος).2 The Hebrew Plural termination occurs 
only in Heb. ix. 5, Χερουβίμ; this word, however, as in the Sept., 
is construed as Neut. (Gen. iii, 24; 1 Kings viii. 7; Ezek. x. 3, 
etc.) like πνεύματα. 


ἘΞ Also in Rey. i. 4 a whole esate egies Greek τς πολ eae for mk) is 


81 


67 


Tth ed, 


treated as indeclinable: ἀπὸ ὁ dv καὶ ὁ ἣν καὶ ὃ ἐρχόμενος, perhaps with 
design (as the name of the immutable One) like ἕν, μηθέν, etc. in Greek 
philosophical writings, even in Aristot. e.g. polit. 5, 3; Procl. theol. Plat. 
2. ed. Hoeschel μετὰ τοῦ ἕν, χωρὶς τοῦ ἕν (Stollberg, de soloecis. N. T. p. 14 
sqq:)- On the other hand, in Creuzer’s edition of the writings of Proclus 
we find invariably ἐκ τοῦ ἑνός, ἐν τῷ evi. Cf. also τὸν 6 δεῖνα, Schif. 
Demosth. 111. 282. 


811, INFLECTION AND COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES. 


1. Adjectives of three terminations, particularly those in tos, 
μίος, εἰος, avos, are not unfrequently (especially in Attic authors) 
used as adjectives of only two terminations (Elmsley, Eurip. Heracl. 
p. 77, Lips. ; Monk, Eurip. Hippol. p. 56, and Eurip. Alcest. 126, 
548,1043; Mtth.295ff). In the N. T. we find Luke ii. 13 στρατιὰ 
οὐράνιος, Acts xxvi. 19, κόσμιος 1 Tim. ii. 9; also Rev. iv. 3 ἶρις 
(Fem.) κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου ὅμοιος (the best established reading) 
σμαραγδίνῳ, etc. ; see my exeget. Stud. 1.152. On the other hand, 
in 1 Tim. ii. 8 ὁσίους χεῖρας (for ὁσίας, which some Codd. in fact 
have), ὁσίους may possibly be construed with ἐπαίροντας, though 
that is not necessary (Fr. Rom. 11.16). Cf. also Tit. iii. 9 μάταιοι 
referring to a Fem. subst., and Jas. i. 26 μάταιος ἡ θρησκεία. 

On the other hand, later Greek has used adjectives of two termi- 
nations as adjectives of three terminations ; as, ἀργός Lob. p. 105, 


1 So also in the Fathers; see Suicer, thes. II. 607 sqq. ; esa ae haer. II. 19 gives 
inflection even to the Plur. τὰ πάσχα. 

2 Most of these names are declined in Josephus, who generally, in conformity to the 
genius of the Greek language, gives terminations to almost all proper names (of persons), 
and consequently declines them; e.g. “Adapuos, ᾿Ισμαῆλος, Naxos, “Iouxos, and others. 
The instances of undeclined foreign names, which Georgi, Hierocr. I. 138, produces from 
Plato and Pausan., are partly not to the point, and partly prove nothing against the 
tendency to inflection. Even Ptolem., besides the large number of declined names of 
places, used some as indeclinable; Nobbe, schedae Ptolem. I. (Lips. 1841. 8vo.) p. 23 sq, 


/ 


§ 11. INFLECTION AND COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES. 69 


and paralip. p. 455 sqq., cf. Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. p. 242. Yet 
this occurs in a quotation from Epimenides Tit. i. 12. Suyyevys, 
és, forms a special feminine ovyyevis (substant.) Luke i. 36, which 
on the authority of good Codd. Lehm. has adopted, Lob. Phryu. 
451 sq. Cf. Malal. pp. 95, 96. 


Αἰώνιος has in the N. T. usually but two terminations; but in 2 Thess. 65 
ii. 16; Heb. ix. 12 αἰωνίαν occurs in the text, and in the latter passage Sthed 
without var.; also, according to single Codd., in 2 Pet. i. 11; Acts xiii. 48; 
cf. Num. xxv. 13, Plat. Tim. 38b. BeBaia Rom. iv. 16, etc., which the 
fastidious Thom. M. 149 declares to be corrupt, is found in Isocr., Demosth. 
(Weber, Dem. p. 133), Xenoph., ete., cf. Duker, Thuc. 2, 43. Ἔρημος, 
which even in Attic varies (cf. Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. p. 262; Mtth. 306), 
in the N. T. always has two terminations. As to ἀσῴφαλην Heb. vi. 19, 
ie. ἀσφαλῆν [so too Lchm. in his stereotype ed., while in his larger ed. he 
writes ἀσφαλήν] see ὃ 9. note 3, p. 66. 

The N. T. Lexicons [ Grimm, however, has it correctly] give γνήσιος as 
an adjective of two terminations (Phil. iv. 3?) without sufficient reason, 
since the Fem. in the form γνήσιος cannot be shown to occur. 


2. On the Comparison of adjectives we have only to observe, 

a. The Compar. Neut. of ταχύς is τάχιον (Jno, xx. 4; 1 Tim. 
iii. 14; Heb. xiii. 19, 23, etc.), for which in earlier Greek θᾶσσον, 
and in Attic θᾶττον, was usual. Τάχιον occurs regularly in Diod. 

8., Dion. H., Plutarch and others, Lob. p. T7 ; Meineke, Menandr. 
p- 144; cf. also 1 Mace. ii. 40; Wisd. xiii. 9. 

Ὁ. In 8 Jno. 4 we find a double Comparative μειζότερος, and in 
Eph. iii. 8 a Compar. formed from the Superlative ἐλαχιστότερος 82 
(ef. ἐλαχιστότατος Sext. Emp. 9, 406, and in Latin, minimissimus, 
pessimissimus). Such forms belong specially to the diction of 
poetry (Apoll. Rhod. 2, 368, wesorepos),or to the later language 
which sought thus to strengthen the Comparative that had become 
weak to the popular mind; cf. xpevrtotepos Ducas 27, 29, 37, 
μειζονότερος ibid. c. 27, and Malal. 18, p. 490, μειζότερος Constant. 
Porph. 1Π. 257, πλειότερος Theophan. p. 567. Yet some such 
instances are found even in earlier authors (see Wetst. II. 247), 
though, as in the case of ἐσχατώτερος Aristot. Metaph. 10, 4, not 68 
as already existing and current, but as arbitrary formations; see the 
Bttm. I. 274 f., Lob. Phryn. p. 136. In German compare the form 
mehrere from mehr. 

6. The Comparatives κατώτερος Eph. iv. 9, ἀνώτερος Luke xiv. 10, 
ἐσώτερος Acts xvi. 24, from the adverbs κάτω, ἄνω. ἔσω. are ground- 
lessly questioned by Bttm. I. 271. They are the undoubted read- 





70 § 12. AUGMENT AND REDUPLICATION 


ings in the N. T. and Sept., and not only occur frequently in later 
authors, as Leo Diac. 10, 1, but even in Attic, Mtth, 328. 

On the form of the Comp. of other Adverbs derived from Adjec- 
tives, as περισσοτέρως 2 Cor. i. 12; Gal. i. 14; Phil. ii. 28, etce., 
which is not unknown to classic Greek writers, see Bttm. II. 345; 
Elmsley, Eurip. Herac. p. 100 Lips. ; 

The Positive ἤρεμος 1 Tim. ii. 2 is not found in earlier Greek (Bttm. 


I. 271, I. 343) ; Lob. pathol. p. 158 has shown that it occurs in Inscript. 
Olbiopol. 2059, 24. 


§ 12. AUGMENT AND REDUPLICATION OF REGULAR VERBS. 


1. A temporal Augment instead of the syllabic occurs, 

a. In the Imperfect ἤμελλε Jno. iv. 47; xi. 51; xii: 835 xviii. 
32; Luke x. 1; Acts xvi. 27; xxvii. 33; Rev. x. 4, with decided 
preponderance of authority. On the contrary, ἔμελλε in Luke 


66 ix. 31; Jno. vi. 71; Heb. xi. 8, is better attested. See in general 
tthe Bockh, Plat. Men. p. 148 sq. 


83 


b. In the Imperfect ἠδύνατο Matt. xxvi. 9; Mark vi. 5,19; xiv. 
5; Jno. ix.33; xi. 87; Luke viii. 19; xix. 3, with preponderance 
of authority ; there is good evidence on the other hand for ἐδύνατο 
Luke i. 22; Acts xxvi. 32, and Rev. xiv. 3, and ἐδύνασθε 1 Cor. 
iii. 2. The Aorist ἠδυνήθην is fully established in Matt. xvii. 16, 19 ; 
Mark ix. 28; Luke ix. 40; 1 Cor. iii. 1. See on these current 
Attic forms Georgi, Hieroer. I. p. 32; Bttm. I. 317; Jacobs, Achill. 
Tat. p. 554; Ellendt, Arrian. Al. Il. p. 208; Boisson. Aen. Gaz. 
Ρ. 173, and Anecd. V. p. 19; ef. Bornem. Act. p. 278. 

c. But neither ἠβουλόμην Acts xv. 37 ; xxviii. 18 nor ἠβουλήθην 
2 Jno. 12 (Mtth. 375) is sufficiently attested ; see Bornem. Act. 233. 

2. The syllabic Augment in a verb beginning with a vowel oc- 
curs, Jno. xix. 82 ἢ, κατέαξαν Ist Aor. from κατάγνυμι (ef. Thom. 
M. 498), and even in the other Moods, as κατεωγῶσι Jno. xix. 31, 
Bttm. 11. 97; οἵ, Thue. 8, 89; Aristot. anim. 9, 43; Plat. Cratyl. 
389b. andc.! Also Fut. κατεάξω Matt. xii. 20 and Sept., to dis 
tinguish it from the Fut. of the verb κατάγω. On the other hand, 
instead of ἐωνησάμην, in which verb the syllabic Augment is most 
usual in Greek authors, we find Acts vii. 16 ὠνησάμην, as some- 
times in classic Greek (Lob. 139); and for éwca, ἐωσάμην Acts 


1In Cinnam. p. 190, we find besides an unusual form of the Perfect, κατεάγηκε. 


ΝΥΝ νπνόνε, ........- 


OF REGULAR VERBS. 1 


vii. 27, 39, 45, dca, ὠσάμην, see § 15. Cf. similar instances in 
Poppo, Thue. III. II. p. 407 ; Index to Leo Gramm. p. 533. 

8. In verbs beginning with ev we find 

a. Unaugmented εὐδόκησα preponderating, only in Matt. xvii.5; 69 
1 Cor. x. 5; Col. i. 19; Heb. x. 6, 8 is ηὐδόκησα favored by the Τὰ ed 
Codd. Also εὐλόγησα predominant over ηὐλόγησα (Matt. xiv. 19; 
Luke xxiv. 30; Heb. xi. 20, 21). Likewise Perf. εὐλόγηκεν Heb. 
Vii. 6; εὔχοντο Acts xxvii. 29, εὐχαρίστησε Acts xxvii. 35, εὐπτορεῖτο 
Acts xi. 29; εὑρίσκειν decidedly (only Mark xiv. 55 is ηὕρισκον 
supported by good Codd.; further, cf. Acts vii. 46; Luke xix. 48), 
ef. Lob. p. 140, and Soph. Ai. p. 123; Hm. Eurip. Bacch. p. 11; 
Boisson. Philostr. epp. p. 75. Even in Attic the Augm. is defended 
by Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 191, and it occurs frequently in the Apocr. 
(Evang. Nicod. c. 20) and the Fathers. 

b. With Augm. ηὐχόμην preponderating Rom. ix. 3 (without 
Augm. see Xen. Anab. 4, 8, 25; Cyrop. 8, 2, 15, yet not without 
var.), ηὐχαρίστησαν Rom. i. 21, ηὐφόρησεν Luke xii. 16 (doubt- 
ful), ηὐκαίρουν Mark vi. 31 (on the other hand Acts xvii. 21 
doubtful), ηὐφράνθη Acts ii. 26 (from Sept.). Cf. generally Bttm. 
1.321; Poppo, Thue. 1. 227, also Lehm. Lucian II. p. 456. Evay- ~ 
γελίζ. has the Augm. after ev, and that without var. Acts viii. 35, 
40; xvii.18; 1 Cor. xv.1; Gal. iv. 13; Rev. x. 7, etc. (see Lob. 

p. 269), even προευηγγελίσατο Gal. iii. 8. So also εὐαρεστεῖν Heb. 

4 xi. 5 (yet Cod. A and several others, without Augm.). Of προς- 84 
εύχεσθαι the forms nearly always have Augm. without var., as 
mposnvéato Matt. xxvi. 44, mposnvyeto Mark i. 85; Acts viii. 15 ; 
Luke xxii. 41, ete. 

: 4. The only verb beginning with οὐ which occurs in past tenses, 
οἰκοδομεῖν, has, not indeed without var., but on vastly prepondera- 

Ε ting authority, the regular Augment; as, ὠκοδόμησε Matt. vii. 24; 67 
‘ xxi. 33, ὠκοδόμητο Luke iv. 29, ὠκοδόμουν Luke xvii. 28, ὠκοδομήθη δ οἱ 
: Jno. ii. 20. Only in Acts vii. 47, good Codd. have οἰκοδόμησε, on 
which later form see Lob. 153. 

_ 5. Προφητεύειν has in Jude 14 with preponderating authority 
the Augment after the preposition, as usual (Bttm. 1. 835); but 
the better Codd. give elsewhere forms like ἐπροφήτευσαν Matt. xi. 

13, ἐπροφητεύσαμεν Matt. vii. 22, ἐπροφήτευσε Matt. xv. 7; Mark 
vii. 6; Luke i. 67 ; Jno. xi. 51, ἐπροφήτευον Acts xix. 6. Schulz 

ad Matt. vii. 22, advised that the latter should be everywhere re- 
ceived into the text, and this Lchm. and Tdf. have done. In 
later writers the Augment is often put before the preposition ; as, 





ΝΥ ae ee τ ΠΥ ΎΤΡῸ 


72 812, AUGMENT AND REDUPLICATION 


ἐπρόςθηκεν, ἐσυμβούλευον (see Index to Ducas, to Jo. Cananus and 
others, in the Bonn ed.), ἐκατήχουν Epiphan. Mon. 33, 16.1 In 
προφητεύειν, however, this is less surprising, as there was no sim- 
ple φητεύειν ; cf. Num. xi. 25f; Sir. xlviii. 18. 

6. The Augment of the form εἴληφα (for the unusual λέληφα, 
Bttm. I. 316), is transferred also to the Ist Aor., κατελήφθη for 
κατελήφθη Jno. viii. 4, not without var. (see Maittaire, dialectt. 
ed. Sturz, p. 58) ; traces of this already existed in Ionism. 

7. A double Augment occurs, 

a. In ἀπεκατεστάθη Matt. xii. 18; Mark iii. ὃ ; Luke vi. 10, now 


70 properly in the text (cf. Lucian, Philopat. c. 27 ἀπεκατέστησε, 
Ὧι ὦ. Ducas 29 ἀπεκατέστησαν, Theophan. p. 814 ἀπεκατέστη, Cinnam. 


85 


p- 259 avtexaréorny; see Dindorf, Diod. S. p. 539, and Schif. 
Plutarch. V. p. 198).? 

b. In ἀνέῳξεν Jno. ix. 14, 30, ἀνεῴχθη Luke i. 64 (Bttm. 11. 250), 
once even in Aor. Inf. ἀνεωχθῆναι Luke iii. 21. Good Codd. give, 
further, many other forms in this verb, viz. ἤνοιξεν Rey. xii. 16 
etc., ἠνοίχθησαν Rev. xx. 12, ἠνοίγην Acts xii. 10; Rev. xi. 19; 
xv. 5, as in Sept. and later writers (Bttm. as above 251; Lob. p. 
153), and with a threefold augment, Matt. ix. 80 ἠνεώχθησαν ; Jno. 
ix. 10; Acts xvi. 26; Acts ix. 8; Rev. xix. 11 ἠνεῳγμένον (Nicet. 
Eugen. 2, 84, 128, var.) ; var. Jno. ix. 14; Rev. xx. 12 (Gen. 
vii. 11; viii. 6; Dan. vii. 10; 3 Macc. vi. 18). Cf. Thilo, Apoer. 
I. 669. 

c. In ἠνείχεσθε 2 Cor. xi. 1, 4, text. rec. (ef. Thue. 5, 45, Herodi. 
8, 5, 9) and ἠνεσχόμην, for avery. Acts xviii. 14 (cf. Her. 7, 159 ; 
Thuc. 8, 28) exactly as in Greek writers, who in these forms 
hardly admit the single Augm. (Bttm. 11. 189) ; yet in 2 Cor. the 
better Codd. have ἀνείχεσθε. 

8. ᾿Εργάζομαι has, according to Codd., several times ἠργάσατο 
for εἰργάσατο Matt. xxv. 16; xxvi. 10; Mark xiv.6; Luke xix. 16; 
Acts xviii. 3 (Exod. xxxvi. 4). The same form occurs also in a 
good MS. of Demosth. (Schiif. appar. V. p. 553); ef. Sturz, p. 125. 
On the other hand, good Codd. (Lehm. and Tdf.) have from ἑλκοῦν 
in Luke xvi. 20, eiAxwpévos ; cf. ‘also Clem. Al. p. 848: Sylb. 

9. The Augm. is for the most part entirely omitted in the forms 
of the Pluperf.; as, Mark xiv. 44 δεδώκει (xv. 10; Jno. xi. 57), 


1 Epiphanii Mon. edita et inedita cura A. Dressel. Paris, 1843. 8vo. 

2 Compare also ἐπροεφήτευον Leo Gramm. pp. 33, 35, and 36, ἐκατεσκεύασαν Canan. 
462, ἐσυνεμαρτύρουν ibid. 478, ἠφώρισται Theophan. 112, ἐπροέταξα Theodor. Gramm. 
40,8. As to the Attic Authors, see V. Fritzsche, Aristoph. 1. 55. 


OF REGULAR VERBS. 13 


Mark xv. Τ πεποιήκεισαν (xvi. 9 ἐκβεβλήκει)., Luke vi. 48 [var. ; ig 


Matt. vii. 25] τεθεμελίωτο, 1 Jno. ii. 19 μεμενήκεισαν, Acts xiv. 8." 
περιπεπατήκει (sce Valcken. on the passage), vs. 23 πεπιστεύκεισαν. 
In consistency, these forms are to be preferred in the N. T. text. 
Ionic prose authors also (Her. 1, 122. 8,42. 9, 22) and Attic (e.g. 
Plato) drop the Augm. in the Pluperf. often, especially in forms 
that would offend the ear (Bttm.I. 318), particularly in compounds 
(cf. Acts xiv. 8); (see Georgi, Hierocr. I. 179; Poppo, Thue. I. 
Ρ. 228; Bornem. Xen. Anab. p. 272; Jacob, Lucian. Tox. p. 68 ; 
Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. pp. 265, 284); cf. Thuc. 8, 92; Xen. C. 
3, 2,24. As to the later writers see especially the Index to Joa. 
Cinnam. Bonn ed. 

10. The reduplication after the analogy of μέμνημαι (Bttm. 1. 
315) appears in μνηστεύεσθαι Luke i. 27; 11. 5 μεμνηστευμένη, not, 
however, without the opposition of good Codd. Of. Sept. Deut. 
xx. 7; xxii. 23sqq. On ῥεραντισμένοι Heb. x. 22, see ὃ 13, 1. b. 

In the best Codd: the Aor. of the compound ἐπαισχύνομαι 2 Tim. i. 16, 


is formed without the temp. Aug. ἐπαισχύνθη, and recent editors have ad- 
mitted it into the text. So also Luke xiii. 13, ἀνορθώθη. 


§ 13. RARE FORMS IN THE TENSES AND PERSONS OF REGULAR 
VERBS. 


1. a. Tenses which in other respects follow completely the 71 
analogy of the 2d Aor., have in the Sept. the termination a and the. 
so forth (of the Ist Aor.) (see Sturz, dial. Alex. p. 61; Valckenaer, 
Herod. p. 649, 91; Dorville, Charit. p. 402; Wolf, Demosth. Lept. 86 


p. 216), e.g. εἴδαμεν 1 Sam. x. 14, εἶδαν and ἔφυγαν 2 Sam. x. 14, 
evpay xvii. 20, ἐφάγαμεν xix. 42, ἐλθάτω Esth. v. 4 (Prov. ix. 5; 
Amos vi. 2; 2 Chron. xxix. 17), etc. In the N. T. modern editors 
have restored this form, agreeably to the concurrent testimony of 
the best Codd.t: Matt. xxv. 36 ἤλθατε, ἐξήλθατε, Matt. xxvi. 39 
παρελθάτω, 2 Thess. ii. 13 εἵλατο, Acts vii. 10; xii. 11 ἐξείλατο, 
vii. 21 ἀνείλατο, Gal. v. 4 ἐξεπέσατε, Rev. vii. 11 (Heb. iii. 17; Jno. 
XViil. 6) ἔπεσαν, Jno. vi. 10 ἀνέπεσαν, Heb. ix. 12 εὑράμενος, (Epiph. 
Opp. I. 619; Theodoret, Opp. IT. 837, Hal.) ef. Acts ii. 23; xvii. 6; 
Zi, 75; xvi. 87; xxii. 7; xxvill. 16; Matt. vii. 18, 25; xi. ΤῸ" 


1 Respecting the MSS. which have this form, see Hug, Einleit. I. 5. 238, 242, 244, 
247, 249, 263 ; Scholz, curae crit. p.40; Rinck, lucubratt. p.37; Ταῦ, prolegg. ad Cod. 
Ephraemi, p. 21. 

10 


69 


6th ed. 


72 
τὰ οὐ, 


87 


74 § 18. RARE FORMS IN THE TENSES 


xvii. 6; xxii. 22; xxv. 36; xxvi. 89, 55; Luke ii. 16; xi. 52; 
xxii. 52; Rom. xv. 3; 1-Cor. x. 8; 2 Cor. vi. 17; 1 Jno. ii. 19; 
Rev. v. 8,14; vi. 13. In the Codd. we find, to be sure, no sort 
of consistency in respect either to the writers or to the words. 
In many passages where this form appears in only a few Codd. it 
might be attributed to the transcribers,? particularly where similar 
flexions in a precede or follow; see Elmsley, Eurip. Med. p. 232 
Lips. ; Fr. Mr. 638sqq. Further, it is found mainly in the 1st 
Per. Sing. and Plur. or 2d or 3d Per. Plur. In the 2d Sing., 
on the other hand, the Imperative and the Partic., it very seldom 
occurs. On instances of such Aor. in Greek authors (e.g. Orpheus) 
see Bttm. I. 404. Προςέπεσα occurring in Eurip. Troad. 293 
Seidler has changed into προςέπεσον ; and in Alcest. 477 undoubt- 
edly πέσοι should be read for πέσειε, see Herm. on the passage.? 
On the other hand, we find in Theophan. p. 283 ἔπεσαν, Achill. 
Tat. 8,17 κατεπέσαμεν, c. 19 περιεπέσαμεν, and Eustath. amor. Ism. 
I. p. 4. should, on the authority of good Codd., be amended ἐκπέσειε, 
see Jacobs p. 664; cf. besides Lob. 183; Mtth. I. 424f. In the 
Byzantine writers various forms of this sort unquestionably occur, 
e.g. ἦλθαν Malalas 18, p.465; 12, p. 895, ἀνῆλθαν 15, p. 389, ηὕραμεν 
18, p. 449, ἀπέλθωτε Ducas 24, ἐξέλθατε Leo Gr. p. 843, ἐπειςέλθατε 
ibid. p. 337. Cf. in general the Index to Ducas, p. 639, and to 
Theophan. p. 682 sq. Bonn. 

b. The past tenses of verbs beginning with p are found in the 
best Codd. with a single p(cf. §5 No.4) ; as, 2 Cor. xi. 25 ἐραβδίσθην, 
Heb. ix. 19 ἐράντισε (x. 22 épavticpévor), Matt. xxvi. 67 ἐράπισαν, 
according to AD 2 Tim. iii. 11 ἐρύσατο, according to AC [Sin.] 
iv. 17 ἐρύσθην ; cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 18; Exod. v. 23; vii. 10; Ley. 
xiv. 7,51; Num. viii. 7. Such forms are confessedly poetic, Bttm. 
I. 84; Mtth. I. 124, yet they frequently occur also in the Codd. 
of Greek prose, Bast, comment. crit. p. 788. In the Perf. the Codd. 


1 They are mostly verbs whose Ist Aor. is not in use. 

2 ᾿Ανάπεσαι, which, according to good Codd., occurs in Luke xiv. 10; xvii.7 (a trace 
of it appears in Polyb. 6, 37, 4, ἐκπεσαμένοις var.), must be the Imperat. of a similarly 
formed Aor. Mid. (avereodunv). As, however, the latter nowhere occurs, ἀνάπεσαι is 
probably to be regarded as a mistake of the copyist (copyists often interchanged ¢ and 
a) for ἀνάπεσε, which, in fact, is the reading of the best Codd., and has been recently 
received into the text; cf. also Rinck, lucubratt. p. 330. Besides, it is only the 2d Aor. 
Act. of this verb that is found, Matt. xv. 85; Mark vi. 40; Luke xi. 37; xxii. 14; 
Jno. vi. 10, ete. The Fut. (as πίεσαι), for which Fr. Mr. p. 641 is disposed to take 
these forms, does not accord well with the construction, particularly as in the second 
passage Imperatives immediately follow. 

8 On the other hand, a Greek inscription in Béckh, 11. 220 has, distinctly, εὕρειαν. 


AND PERSONS OF REGULAR VERBS. 75 


Al. [Sin.] and Ephraem. Heb. x. 22, give the reduplicated form 
ῥεραντισμένοι, of which, besides the Homeric (Odyss. 6, 59) ῥερυ- 
πωμένα, several examples occur in later writers, Lob. paralip. 13. 
So in Matt. ix. 86 the Cod. Cantab. gives ῥεριμμένοι, which Lehm. 
has adopted. 

c. The Futures of verbs in sf sometimes are found (with un- 
important var. in Codd.) in the contracted form; as, μετοικιῶ 
Acts vii. 43, ἀφοριεῖ Matt. xxv. 32, ἀφοριοῦσι Matt. xiii. 49, γνωριοῦσι 
Col. iv. 9, καθαριεῖ Heb. ix. 14, διακαθαριεῖ Matt. iii. 12, ἐλπιοῦσι 
Matt. xii. 21, μακαριοῦσι Luke i. 48, etc. This is an Atticism 
(though the same form was not foreign to the Ionians also) ; cf. 
Georgi, Hieroc. I. p. 29; Fischer, Weller. Il. p. 355; Mtth. I. p. 
402. Of βαπτίζω the common form βαπτίσει alone is used Matt. 

iii. 11. On στηρίζω see ὃ 15. In the Sept. verbs in afw also are 
inflected after the same analogy in the Future, e.g. ἐργᾶται Lev. 
xxv. 40, ἁρπᾷ xix. 13, etc. Such Attic Futures of contract verbs 70 
some have wished to find in Matt. ii. 4 γεννᾶται, Jno. xvi. 17 θεωρεῖτε Shed 
(on account of ὄψεσθε following), Matt. xxvi. 18 ποιῶ ; but all 
these are Presents. See ὃ 41,2; cf. Fr. Mt. as above, Mtth. p. 403 f. 

d. Of verbs in aw, λευκαίνω has in the Aor. the Attic form 
(Bttm. I. 439) λευκᾶναι Mark ix. 3, and βασκαίνω Gal. iii. 1 in 
var. has the equally classic form ἐβάσκηνα. But σημαίνω has Aor. 
ἐσήμανα Acts xi. 28; Rey. 1. 1, see below, § 15. Mapai 1 Cor. | 
i. 20 and Enpaive Jas. i. 11, have the a as verbs in paivw do regu- 
larly. Respecting φᾶναι see ὃ 15, p. 89. 

e. Futures Subjunctive are occasionally noted in individual 
passages, from a greater or less number of Codd., e.g. 1 Cor. xiii. 3 
καυθήσωμαι (adopted by Griesbach), 1 Pet. iii. 1 κερδηθήσωνται, 
1 Tim. vi. 8 ἀρκεσθησώμεθα (in both passages without much au- 
thority). In the better class of authors sueh forms probably 
originate with the transcribers, see Abresch in Observatt. mise. ITT. 
Ρ. 18 ; Lob. 721; but in later writers, and the Scholiasts particularly 
(ef. Thue. 8, 11 and 54), they cannot be rejected (see Niebuhr, 
ind. ad Agath. p. 418, and ind. to Theophan. p. 682). In the 
N. T., however, there is very little authority for these Subjunctives. 73 
Quite isolated are εὑρήσῃς Rev. xviii. 14 and εὑρήσωσιν Rev. ix. 6 Τὰ εἰ, 
(yet an Aor. εὑρῆσαι also occurs, see Lob. p. 721), γνώσωνται Acts 88 
xxi. 24 (yet cf. Lob. p. 735). (ὄψησθε Luke xiii. 28 and δώσῃ 
Jno. xvii. 2, are unquestionably Aor.) 

2. Peculiar personal endings are : 

a. The 2d Per. Sing. Pres. and Fut. Pass. and Mid. in εἰ for 7; 


76 § 13, RARE FORMS IN THE TENSES 


as, βούλει Luke xxii. 42, παρέξει vii. 4 (var.), ὄψει Matt. xxvii. 4 
and Jno. xi. 40 (var.). Cf. also Matt. xxvii. 4; Acts xvi. 31; 
xxiv. 8 (var.). In the two verbs ὄπτεσθαι and βούλεσθαι this is 
the form invariably used in Attic (Bttm. I. 348) ; in other verbs 
it seldom occurs, and almost exclusively in the poets (ef. Valcken. 
ad Phoen. p. 216sq.; Fischer ad Weller. I. p. 119, II. p. 899; 
Georgi, Hierocr. I. p. 834; Schwarz ad Olear. p. 225), yet it appears 
in good MSS. even of Attic prose, Bttm. as above; but cf. Schneider, 
praef. ad Plat. civ. I. p. 49 sqq. 

b. In the 2d Per. Sing. we find the original τὐοϑηθομοίδα form 
not only in δύνασαι (Matt. v. 36; viii. 2; Mark i. 40) where it 
continued to be the usual form, Bttm. 1. 502 (yet cf. δύνῃ Mark 


1x. 22; Rey, ii. 2, and var. Luke xvi. 2,1 which at first was used 


71 


only by the poets, subsequently by prose authors also, e.g. Polyb. 
7, 11,5; Aelian. 18, 32, see Lob. 359), but we find it also in con- 
tract verbs, ὀδυνᾶσαι Luke xvi. 25 (Aeschyl. Choéph..854), καυχᾶσαι 
Rom. ii. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 7, and κατακαυχᾶσαι Rom. xi. 18; οἵ, 
Georgi, Hierocr. I. p. 184; Bttm. I. 847; Boisson. Anecd. IV. p. 
479. See πίνω below. 

c. In the 3d Per. Plur. of the Perfect av for acu (from the 
old termination ἀντι); as, éyywxav Jno. xvii. T, τετήρηκαν xvii. 6, 


6th ed. εἴρηκων Rev. xix. 8, also Luke ix. 36 and Col. ii. 1 éépaxay in very 


good Codd., likewise Rev. xxi. 6; Jas. v. 4. So also in Sept.,. 
e.g. Deut. xi. 7; Judith vii. 10 (Acta apoer. p. 235). This form 
belongs to the Alexandrian dialect; cf. Sext. Emp. 1, 10, p. 261, 
and the Papyri Taurin. p. 24 (κεκυρίευκαν) ; but occurs also in 
Lycophr. 252 (wédpicav), in inscriptions and often in the Byzantine 
writers (cf. Index to Ducas p. 639, to Codin. and Leo Gramm.) ; 
see Bttm. I. 845. Tdf. has received it into the text in all the 


above passages of the N.T. But in Rev. ii. 3 he has rejected [yet 


89 


14 


Tth ed. 


not in ed. vii.] the form κεκοπίακες (Exod. v. 22) found in AC. 

ἃ. The 1st Aor. Opt. has the original Adolic termination eva, evas, 
eve, instead of auus; as, Ψηλαφήσειαν Acts xvii. 27, ποιήσειαν Luke 
vi. 11. So very frequently (in 2d and 3d Sing. and 3d Plur.) in 
Attic authors: Thue. 6, 19. 8,6; Aristoph. Plut. 95; Plat. rep. 
I. 387 ο.; Gorg. 800 ο.; Xen. An. 7, 7, 30, etc.; see Georgi, Hierocr. 
I. p. 150 sq.; Bttm. I. 354 f., and still more frequently in later 
authors. See Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. p. 353. 

6. The 3d Per. Plur. of the Imperative in τωσαν occurs repeat- 


1 As to this form, which some would exchange for δύνᾳ, compare Porson, Eurip. Hee. 
257; Schaf. and Hm. Soph. Philoct. 787; Oudend. ad Thom. M. p. 252; Lob. p. 359. 


AND PERSONS OF REGULAR VERBS. 77 


edly in the N. T.; as, 1 Cor. vii. 9 γαμησάτωσαν, vii. 80 γαμείτωσαν, 
1 Tim. v. 4 μανθανέτωσαν (Tit. iii. 14), cf. Acts xxiv. 20; xxv. 5. 
The assertion of Elmsley, Eurip. Iphig. T. p. 232, ed. Lips., that 
this form did not become usual till after Aristotle’s time, has been 
fully refuted by Mtth. I. 442 and Bornem. Xen. An. p. 38. 

f. The 3d Per. Plur. of the historical tenses has often, in good 
Codd., the termination ocay (Bttm. I. 346) ; as, Jno. xv. 22, 24 
εἴχοσαν for εἶχον, xix. 3 ἐδίδοσαν for ἐδίδουν, 2 Thess. iii. 6 παρελά- 
βοσαν, and Rom. iii. 13 from Sept. ἐδολιοῦσαν. This termination 
is much used in the Sept. and by the Byzantines; as, Exod. xv. 27 
ἤλθοσαν, Josh. v. 11 ἐφάγοσαν, Exod. xvi. 24 κατελίποσαν, xviii. 26 
éexpivocav, Niceph. Greg. 6, 5, p. 113 εἴδοσαν, Nicet. Chon. 21, 7, 
p. 402 κατήλθοσαν, Niceph. Bryenn. p. 165 μετήλθοσαν, Brunck, 
Analect. II. p. 47; οὗ also 1 Mace. vi. 31; Cant. 111. 3; v. 7; vi. 8; 
Josh. ii. 1; iii. 14; v.11; vi. 14; viii. 19; Judg. xix. 11; i. 6; 
Ruth i. 4; Lam. ii.14; Ezek. xxii.11; Exod. xxxiii.8, etc., Fischer, 
Weller. II. p. 336 sq. ; Georgi, Hicrocr. I. p. 165 sq. ; Lob. Phryn. 
349, and pathol. 485; Sturz, p. 58sqq. In the N.T. however, 
with the exception of Rom. as above, only single Codd. give this 
form, and it may possibly be attributable everywhere to the Alex- 
andrian transcribers. 

3. Of contracted verbs we must note 

a. The Future ἐκχεῶ Acts ii. 17, 18 Sept., after the manner of 
verbs in A, μ, v, p, cf. LXX. Ezek. vii. 8; xxi. 31; Jer. xiv. 16; 
Hos. v.10; Zech. xii. 10; Bttm. 1. p. 369. Were it accented 
ἐκχέω, it would be, according to Elmsley, the Attic Fut., as this 
form is both Pres. and Fut.; see Bttm. II. 325. But in Sept. with 
the same accent it is further inflected, ἐκχεεῖς, ἐκχεεῖτε, Exod. iv. 9 ; 
xxix. 12; xxx. 18; Deut. xii. 16. 

Ὁ. The usual forms of the two verbs διψάω, πεινάω, in the 
(Attic) literary language were Inf. διψῆν, πεινῆν, and Indic. διψῇς, 
διψῇ, etc., Bitm. 1.487. In the N. T. we find instead διψᾶν, διψᾷ 
Rom. xii. 20; Jno. vii. 37, πεινᾶν Phil. iv. 12, πεινᾷ Rom. xii. 20; 
1 Cor. xi. 21, which first occurs after the time of Aristot. (Anim. 
9, 31, cf. Sallier ad Thom. M. p. 699; Lob. 61). According to 
the same analogy we find Fut. πεινάσω (for πεινήσω) Rev. vii. 16 ; 
Jno. vi. 35 var. (Isa. v. 27; Psalm xlix.12), and 1st Aor. ἐπείνασα 
Mark ii. 25; xi. 12; Matt. xii. 1,3; xxv. 85; Lukeiv. 2. Both 
forms are peculiarities of later Greek ; see Lob. 204. 

c. Of verbs in ew, retaining ¢ in the Fut. etc. (Lob. paral. 435), 
we find in the N. T. καλέσω, τελέσω (Bttm. I. Ρ. 892), also φορέσω 


Τὸ 
ἴ αἱ, 


91 


18 § 14. RARE INFLECTIONS OF VERBS IN Μὲ 


and ἐφόρεσα 1 Cor. xv. 49 (Sir. 11,5; Palaeph. 52,4). In the 
classics the usual form is φορήσω ; yet even Isaeus has φορέσαι, 
see Bttm. II. 815. (On the other hand εὐφόρησεν Luke xii. 16.) 
On ἀπολέσω and ἐπαινέσω, see below, ὃ 15. 


§ 14, RARE INFLECTIONS OF VERBS IN mi AND OF IRREGULAR 
VERBS. 


1. Of verbs in μὲ we find: . 

a. Pluper. Act. ἑστήκεσαν Rev. vii. 11 var. for ἑστήκεισαν ; cf. 
Thue. 1,15 ξυνεστήκεσαν, Xen. An, 1, 4,4 ἐφεστήκεσαν, Heliod. 
4,16 ἐῴκεσαν, cf. particularly Jacobs, Achill. Tat. pp. 400, 622 ; 
Ellendt, Arrian. Al. II. 77. 

b. 8d Per. Plur. Pres. τιθέασι for τιθεῖσι Matt. v.15, περιτιθέασι 
Mark xv. 17, ἐπιτιθέασι. Matt. xxiii. 4. This is the better and more 
usual form; cf. Thue. 2, 34; Aristot. Metaph. 11. 1; Theophr. 
plant. 2, 6; see Georgi, Hierocr. I. 145sq., who adduces many 
instances, and Mtth. I. 483; Schneider, Plat. civ. 11, 250. Sim- 
ilarly διδόασι Rev. xvii. 18, according to the best Codd. ; ef. Her. 
I. 93; Thue. 1. 42. The contracted forms τιθεῖσι and especially 
διδοῦσι belong to the later language ; Lob. p. 244. | 

c. In the Imperf. the 8d Per. Plur. has the contracted form 
ἐδίδουν for ἐδίδοσαν in compounds, Acts iv. 33; xxvii. 1; cf. Hesiod, 
ἔργ. 123. In the Sing. the form ἐδίδουν is more common ; Bttm. 
I. 509. 

d. On the abbreviated but very (perhaps only) common Inf. 
Perf. Act. ἑστάναι. (for ἑστηκέναι) 1 Cor. x. 12, see Bttm. 11. 26 f., 
cf. Georgi, Hierocr. I. 182 sq. . 

6. The Imperative Pres. Pass. in several Codd. is περιΐστασο 
2 Tim. ii. 16; Tit. iii. 9 (ἀφίστασο 1 Tim. vi. 5 var.) for which 
περιΐστω etc. is more usual; see Th. M. p. 75; Mtth. 1. 495. — 

f. There are weighty authorities for forms like ἱστῶμεν Rom. 
iii. 81, συνιστῶντες 2 Cor. vi. 4; x. 18 (Niceph. Bryenn. p. 41, 
cf. καθιστῶν Agath. 810, 2), ἀποκαθιστᾷ Mark ix. 12 (Dan. ii. 21 ; 
2 Sam. xviii. 12; Fabric. Pseudep. II. 610; ξυνιστᾷ Plat. Tim. 33a.) 
from the form ἱστάω (Her. 4, 103, as ἀφιστάω Joa. Cinnam. p. 121, 
ἐφιστάω p. 65, καθιστάω p. 104); see Grammatici graeci, ed. Dind. 
I. 251; Dorville, Charit. p. 542; Mtth. 1. 482. Similarly ἐμπιπλῶν 
(from ἐμπυπλάω) Acts xiv. 17, cf. ἐμπυπρῶν Leo Diac. 2, 1. 

g. Optat. Pres. δῴη for δοίη Rom. xv. 5; 2 Tim. i. 16, 18 (ii. T) 5 
Eph. i. 17; iii. 16; Jno. xv. 16, ἀποδῴη 2 Tim. iv. 14. This is a 


AND OF IRREGULAR VERBS. 79 


later form, (in Plat. Gorg. 481 a., Lys. c., Andoc. p. 215, Τὶ IV. 73 
recent editors have restored δῷ, and in Xen. Cyr. 8, 1, 85 even aati 
Schneider changed δῴης into δοίης), see Sept. Gen. xxvii. 28 ; 
xxviii. 4; Num. v. 21; xi. 29, etc., Themist. or. 8, p.174d.; Philostr. 
Apoll. 1. 34; Dio Chr. 20. 267; Aristeas, p. 120, Haverc. etc., 
which the ancient grammarians reject (Phryn. p. 345; Moeris 
p- 117) ; ef. Lob. 346 ; Sturz, 52; Bttm. in Mus. antiq. stud. I. 238. 

h. From βαίνω, 2d Aor. ἔβην, we find the Imperative ἀνάβα Rey. T6 , 
iv. 1, κατάβα Mark xv. 30 var. (on the contrary κατάβηθι Matt. mi, 
xxvii. 40; Jno. iv. 49, μετάβηθι. vii. 3; cf. Thom. Mag. p. 495, and 
Oudendorp, h.1.). Similarly Eurip, Electr. 113 ; Aristoph. Acharn. 
262, and Vesp. 979; see Georgi, Hierocr. I. 153 sq.; Bttm. 11. 125. 
Quite analogous is ἀνάστα Acts xii. 7; Eph. v. 14; ef. Theocrit. 

24, 86: Menand. p. 48; Mein. Aesop. 62, de Fur. (but ἀνάστηθι 
Acts ix. 6, 84, ἐπίστηθι 2 Tim. iv. 2), also ἀπόστω protev. Jac. 2., 
παράστα Acta apocr. 51. 

i. The N. T. Codd. vary as to the form of the Perf. Part. Neut. 
of ἵστημι. Yet the better Codd. have in the two passages Matt. 
xxiv. 15; Mark xiii. 14[ A.C. Sin. also in Rev. xiv.1] éoros (éornKos), — 
exactly as the oldest and best Codd. of Greek authors (Bttm. II. 
208), and this form Bekker in Plato prefers throughout. Else- 
where the uncontracted forms of this participle not unfrequently 
occur in good MSS. of the N. T., as Matt. xxvii. 47 ἑστηκότων Mark 
ix.1; χὶ. ὅ, ἑστηκώς Jno. 111. 29; vi. 22, παρεστηκόσιν Mark xiv. 69, 
and, for the most part, have been received into the text. 

The (pretty well attested) form δώσῃ Jno. xvii. 2; Rev. viii. 3 (xiii. 16 — 

δώσωσιν) occurs also Theocrit. 27, 21, and is, according to some, Doric, 
In Theocrit. indeed it has for a long time been corrected to δώσει ; yet 
δώσῃ occurs often enough in later writers (Lob. 721; cf. Thilo, Apocr. 
I. 871; Index ad Theophan.), and probably may be classed among the 
corrupt forms in which the popular speech indulged. 

2. From εἰμί we find: 92 

a. The Imperat. ἤτω for ἔστω (which in the N.T. is also the 
usual form) 1 Cor. xvi. 22; Jas. v. 12 (Ps. civ. 31; 1 Mace. x. 31; 
cf. Clem. Alex. strom. 6, 275; Acta Thom. 8,7) Bttm. I. 529; 
only once in Plato, rep. 2, 8361 d., see Schneider, h.1. According 
to Heraclides (in Eustath. p. 1411, 22) the inflection is Doric. 
The other Imperative form ἔσθιε occurs in Matt. ii. 13; v.25; Mark 
v. 84; Luke xix. 17; 1 Tim. iv. 15 (Bttm. I. 527). 


1 This form is surprising also in the N. T., as it everywhere stands where otherwise 
according to the idiom of the N. T. the Subjunctive would stand. 


80 § 14. RARE INFLECTION OF VERBS IN MI, ETC. 


Ὁ. The form ἤμην Imperf. Mid. 1st Per. Sing. (Bttm. I. 527), 
which is rejected by the Atticists and became quite usual (par- 
ticularly with ἄν, as in the N.T. once in Gal. i. 10) only in later 
writers (Lob. 152; Schaf. Long. 423; Valcken. in N. T. I. 478), 
is the common form; as, Matt. xxv. 85; Jno. xi.15; Acts x. 30; 

τς xi. 5,17; 1 Cor. xiii. 11, οἵο. ; cf. Thilo, Acta Thom. p. 3; ἤμεθα 
‘for ἦμεν occurs (Matt. xxiii. 30) twice in very good Codd., and 
has already been received into the text by Griesbach. Also Acts 
xxvii. 37; Lchm., agreeably to A [Sin.] and B, adopted it. -On the 
other hand, in Gal. iv. 8; Eph. ii. 3 it has little authority. The 
form does not occur in any good writer; yet see Epiphan. Opp. II. 
333 ; Malal. 16, p. 404. 

c.-For ἦσθα Mark xiv. 67, Codd. of little weight have ἧς, rare 
in Attic, and almost doubtful (Bttm. I. 528). As to its use in 
later Greek, see Lob. 149. ; 


77 Note. ἔνι Gal. iii. 28 ; Col. 111. 11 ; Jas. i. 17 (doubtful in 1 Cor. vi. 5), 

ἴΔ εἰ, cf. Sir. 37, 2, is usually considered (with the ancient grammarians, cf. Schol. 
ad Aristoph. Nub. 482) to be contracted from ἔνεστι, and this opinion is 
defended also by Fr. Mr. p. 642. It is probably better, however, with 
Bitm. 11. 375, to take it for the preposition ἔνε (ἐν, évi with the accent 
thrown back) which, like ἔπι, πάρα; etc., is used without εἶναι ; as the sup- 
posed contraction would be harsh, and without example. Bttm.’s view, 
moreover, is supported by the analogy of ἔπι and πάρα, the latter of which 
can hardly be a contraction from πάρεστι, cf. Krii.26. This ἔνι is very fre- 
quent in Attic, both in poetry and prose ; Georgi, Hierocr. I. 152 ; Schwarz, 
Comm. 486. The poets use it for ἔνεισι, as ἔπι for ἔπεισι, Il. 20, 248; 
Odyss. 9, 126; πάρα, however, is connected even with the 180 Person.! 


8. With the primitive verb ἵημι the following forms are con- 
nected : 

a. ἀφέωνται Matt. ix. 2,5; Mark ii.5; Luke ν. 20, 28 ; vii. 47; 

1 Jno. ii. 12. Ancient grammarians are not agreed in accounting 

93 for this form. Some, as Eustathius (Iliad, 6, 490) consider it 

equivalent to ἀφῶνταιυ, in the same way as ἀφέῃ is used by Homer 

for ἀφῇ. Others, more correctly, take it for the Preterite (instead 

of ἀφεῖνται) ; so Herodian, the Etymol. Mag. and Suidas, — yet 

with this difference, that the last ascribes it to the Doric dialect, 

the author of the Etymol. to the Attic. Suidas is undoubtedly. 


1 The Etymol. M. p. 357, regards ἔνι, not as a contraction of ἔνεστι, but as an ellipsis, 
requiring the suitable person of the verb εἶναι to be supplied. Moreover, whether ἔν 
also occurs for ἔνι, is doubtful, Hm. Soph. Trach. 1020, 


§ 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS. 81 


right; and this Perf. Pass. is traceable to the Perf. Act. ἀφέωκα, 
ef. Fischer, de vitiis lex. p. 646 sqq.; Bttm. 1. 521. 

b. ἤφιε Mark i. 834; xi. 16 (Philo leg. ad Cajum p. 1021) is the 
Imperf. of ἀφίω (cf. ἀφίω Eccl. ii. 18, and ἀφίομεν Matt. vi. 12 
var.), like ξύνιον for ξυνίεσαν Iliad, 1, 273 (Bttm. 1. 523), with 
the Augm. on the preposition (which occurs elsewhere also in this 
verb, as ἠφείθη Plutarch, Sulla 28) for ἀφίει (Bttm. I. 521) see 
Fischer, Weller. 11. 480. 

c. The ist Aor. Pass. of ἀφίημι in Rom. iv. 7 (Ps. xxxii. 1) 
according to most Codd. is ἀφέθησαν. Some Codd., however, here 
and in Sept. give ἀφείθησαν with Augm. which is the usual form 
in Greek authors (Bttm. I. 541). 

In Rey. ii. 20 ἀφεῖς (Exod. xxxii. 32) from ἀφέω has on the authority 75 
of good Codd. been received into the text, like τιθεῖς for τίθης Bttm. I. 506. bith εἰ, 

From συνίημι we have συνιοῦσι Matt. xiii. 13 (3d Per. Plur.), 2 Cor. 

x. 12 (either 3d Plur. or Dative Participle) and Participle συνιών Matt. 
xiii. 23 var. (Rom. iii. 11, from Sept. συνιῶν) for συνιείς, which Lehm. and 
Tdf. have in the text. The first form is from συνιέω, (which still survives 

in the Inf. συνιεῖν, Theogn. 565). The Participial form, however, espec- 7g 
ially common in Sept. (1 Chron. xxv. 7; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12; Ps. xl. 2; Τὴ οἱ, 
Jer. xx. 12) would perhaps more correctly be written συνίων (from συνίω, 

see above, and Bttm. I. 523). Accordingly Lchm. has printed συνίουσι 
Matt. xiii. 13. Cf. in general Fr. Rom. 1. 174 seq. 


4. From the verb κάθημαι we find Imperat. κάθου Matt. xxii. 44; 
Luke xx. 42; Acts ii. 84 ; Jas. ii. 3 (1 Sam. i. 23; xxii. 5; 2 Kings 
ii. 2, 6, ete.) instead of κάθησο. Only in Mark xii. 36 has Tdf. 
adopted from Β κάθισον. The form κάθου never occurs in the 
earlier Greek authors, and therefore Moeris p. 234 and Thom. M. 
Ρ. 485 class it among spurious forms. So also κάθῃ for κάθησαι 
Acts xxiii. ὃ (Lob. 895; Greg. Cor. ed. Schiif. p. 411). 


§ 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS. 94 


Not a few verbs present in the N. T. single forms, regularly 
constructed, which are rejected for the most part by ancient gram- 
marians, on the ground that they do not occur in Greek authors, 
or only in the later. Among such forms are reckoned in particular 
a number of Futures Active, for which standard writers use the 
Futures Middle (Bttm. 11. 84 f. ; Monk, Eurip. Alcest. v. 159, 645) ; 
but this subject has not yet been completely investigated. We 


subjoin a list of all such forms as have been declared unclassical, 
1 


82 § 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS. 


but mark with an asterisk those about which the grammarians, and 
in particular Thom. Mag. and Moeris, have been manifestly too 
fastidious. . 

ἀγγέλλω. The 2d Aor. Active and Passive, rare in the better 
authors, are in many passages suspicious, Bttm. 11. 94 f.; yet, see 
Schaf. Demosth. III. 175 ; Schoem. Isae. p. 39. In the N. T. we 
find ἀνηγγέλη 1 Pet. i. 12, and (from the Sept.) Rom. xv. 21, 
Sayyed} (from Sept.) Rom. ix. 17, κατηγγέλη Acts xvii. 18. 


ἄγνυμι. On the Fut. κατεάξει Matt. xii. 20 and Aor. κατέαξα 


see § 12, 2. 

*dy@. On the Ist Aor. #£a, which occurs 2 Pet. ii. 5 in the com- 
pound ἐπάξας, see Bttm. 11.98 ; Lob. p. 287, 735. In compounds 
also the form is not rare (2 Sam. xxii. 835; 1 Macc. ii. 67 ; Index 
to Malal. under ἄγω ; Schiif. ind. ad Aesop. p. 135) even in good 


g prose authors Her. 1, 190; 5,84; Xen. Hell. 2, 2, 20; Thue. 2, 
Gthed, 97; 8, 25. 


79 
7th ed. 


95 


*aipéw. The Fut. da, in comp. ἀφελῶ Rev. xxii. 19, is rare, 
see Bttm. 11. 100. Yet it is found in Agath. 269, 5, and in the 
Sept. frequently : Exod. v.8; Num. xi. 17; Deut. xii. 32; Job 
xxxvi. 7; cf. also Menand. Byz. p. 316. In opposition to Reisig, 
Comm. crit. in Soph Oed. C. p. 365, who claims it for Aristoph. 
and Soph., see Hm. Oed. Col. 1454 and Eurip. Hel. p. 127. 

*axovw. Fut. ἀκούσω Matt. xii. 19; xiii. 14; Rom. x. 14; Jno. 
xvi. 13, for ἀκούσομαι, which even in the N. T. is the more frequent, 
particularly with Luke, as Acts iii. 22 (vil. 87) ; xvii. 32; xxv. 22; 
xxviii: 28, also Jno. v. 28. ᾿Ακούσω occurs not only in poets 
(Anthol. gr. III. 134 ; Jac. Orac. Sibyll. 8, 206, 345), but occasion- 
ally also in prose authors of the κοινή, as Dion. H. 980, 4. Reisk., 
ef. Schaf. Demosth. II. 232; Wurm, Dinarch. p. 153; Bachmann, 
Lycophr. I. 92. In Sept. ef. Isa. vi. 9; 2 Sam. xiv. 16. 

ἅλλομαι varies between Aor. ἡλάμην and ἡλόμην Bttm. 11. 108. 
The same variation exists in the Codd. Acts xiv. 10 (even with 
double Δ), yet ἥλατο preponderates. 

ἁμαρτάνω, ἁμαρτέω. 150 Aor. ἡμάρτησα for 2d Aor. ἥμαρτον 
Rom. ν. 14,16; Matt. xviii. 15; Luke xvii.4; Rom. vi. 15 (1 Sam. 


xix.4; Lam. iii. 41 1) Thom. M. p. 420 ; Lob. p. 782; yet see Diod. 


S. 2,14 ἁμαρτήσας, Agath. 167,18. Also the Fut. Act. ἁμαρτήσω 
Matt. xviii. 21 (Sir. vii. 36; xxiv. 22; Dio Ch. 59, 20) is not very 
common. Cf. Monk, Eurip. Alcest. 159; Poppo, Thue. III. IV. 361. 


1 Still, in the Sept. the 2d Aor. ἥμαρτον predominates. See especially 1 Kings viii. 
47, ἡμάρτομεν, ἠνομήσαμεν, ἠδικήσαμεν. 


ee 


§ 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS. 83 


*avéyouat. Fut. ἀνέξομαι Matt. xvii. 17; Mark ix.19; Luke 
ix. 41; 2 Tim. iv. 3, for which Moeris from pure caprice would 
have ἀνασχήσομαι:. The former occurs very frequently; cf. e.g. 
Soph. Elect. 1017; Xen. C. 5, 1, 26; Plat. Phaedr. 239 ἃ. 

ἀνοίγω. 150 Aor. ἤνοιξα Jno. ix. 17, 21, etc. for ἀνέῳξα (yet cf. 
Xen. Hell. 1, 5, 13), 2d Aor. Pass. ἠνοίγη Rev. xv. 5, see § 12, 7. 

ἀπαντάω. Fut. ἀπαντήσω (for ἀπαντήσομαι) Mark xiv. 13 
(Diod. 8. 18,15). See Bttm. IT. 114; Mtth. Eurip. Suppl. 774. 

ἀποκτείνω. ist Aor. ἀπεκτάνθη, ἀποκτανθῆναι Rev. ii. 13; 
ix. 18, 20; xi. 13; xiii. 10; xix. 21; Matt. xvi. 21; Luke ix. 22, 
etc. ; cf. 1 Mace. ii. 9; 2 Macc. iv. 36. This form occurs indeed 
in Homer, but belongs peculiarly to later Greek prose (Dio C. 65, 
c.4; Menander, Hist. p. 284, 304, Bonn ed.). See Bttm. 11. 227, 
Lob. 36, 757.1 (For the un-Attic Perf. ἀπέκταγκα see 2 Sam. iv. 
11; Bttm. 226 f.) 

ἀπόλλυμι. Fut. ἀπολέσω Matt. xxi. 41; Mark viii. 835; Jno. 80 
vi. 39; xii. 25; cf. Lucian. asin. 833; Long. pastor. 3,17; Bttm. 11. τὴ εἰ 
254. Yet see Lob. 746. (In 1 Cor i. 19, we find the regular form 77 
» n ὃ bth ed. 
ἀπολῶ.) ᾿ 

ἁρπάζξω. Aor. ἡρπάγην 2 Cor. xii. 2,4 for ἡρπάσθην (Rev. xii. 

5) Thom. Mag. p.424; Moeris, p.50; Bttm.1.372, Fut. ἁρπαγήσομαι 
1 Thess. iv. 17. (Also ἁρπάσω for ἁρπάσομαι Jno. x. 28 is said 
to be a rare form ; it occurs, however, in Xen. mag. eq. 4, 17.) 

*avEdvw. The primitive form αὔξω Eph. ii. 21; Col. ii. 19 is 
frequent in Plato and Xen., Mtth. 541. 

Bapéw. From this comes not only βεβαρημένος Matt. xxvi. 43; 96 
Luke ix. 32, but also, contrary to Attic prose usage (Bttm. 11. 88), 
βαρούμενοι 2 Cor. v. 4 (Mark xiv. 40), βαρείσθω 1 Tim. v. 16, and 
the Aor. ἐβαρήθην Luke xxi. 34; 2 Cor. i. 8, for which last the 
Greek literary diction employs ἐβαρύνθην (var. Luke as above). 

Backaivw. The Aor. Gal. iii. 1 is given in text. rec. ἐβάσκανε, 
but in many Codd. ἐβάσκηνε (without ane subs.); οἵ. Bttm. 1. 438. 
The latter in Dio C. 44, 839; Herod. 2, 4, 11, and the later writers. 


1 ᾿Αποκτέννεσθαι (others ἀποκτένεσθαι) occurring in Rev. vi. 11, and ἀποκτέννει (ἀπο- 
κτενεῖ var.) in 2 Cor. iii. 6 (Rev. xiii. 10) are considered as Aeolic, the Aeolians being 
accustomed to change εἰ before A, μ, v, p,o into e, and double the following consonant ; 
therefore, κτένγω for κτείνω, like σπέῤῥω for σπείρω, Koenig, Gregor. Cor. pp. 587, 597 
Schaef., Mtth. I. 74; cf. Dindorf, praef. ad Aristoph. XII. p. 14. Also in Tob. i. 18; 
Wisd. xvi. 14, we find the first form among the var. A Present ἀποκτένω is probably 
not, with Wahl, to be assumed for Matt. x. 28 and Luke xii. 4; xiii. 34. ᾿Αποκτενόν- 
τῶν in those passages (if not to be taken for an Aor. Particip., see Fr. Mt. p. 383) may 
be considered as a corruption of ἀποκτεννόντων, which a few, but good, Codd. have, and 
which Lehm. and, in part, Tdf. have printed. Cf. besides, Bornem. ad Luc. Ρ. 81. 


78 
Gh ed. 


81 
Tth ed. 


97 


84 § 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS. 


βιόω. Ast Aor. Inf. βιῶσαι in 1 Pet. iv. 2, for which the 2d Aor. 
βιῶναι is more usual in Attic, Bttm. II. 130f., yet see Aristot. Nic. 
9, 8; Plutarch. Opp. 11. 367 f., and often in compounds, Steph. 
Thes. II. 260, ed. nov. The other forms of the 1st Aor. are more 
frequent, the participle βιώσας the most so. 

Bractave. Aor. ἐβλάστησα for ἔβλαστον Matt. xiii. 26; Jas. 
v.18 (Gen. i. 11; Num. xvii. 8, etc.; Acta apoc. p. 172); ef. 
Bttm. 11. 131. Since Aristotle’s time the form is not unusual 
even in the Greek literary language; Stephani Thes. IT. 273. 

*yawéw. Aor. ἐγάμησα Mark vi.17; Matt. xxii. 25; 1 Cor. vii. 9 
stands for the older form @ynua (from γάμων, as Luke xiv. 20; 
1 Cor. vii. 28 ; see Georgi, Hierocr. 1.29; Lob. 742. Yet ἐγάμησα 
is found (if not in Xen. Cyr. 8, 4, 20) Lucian, dial. deor. 5, 4: 
Apollodor. 3,15,3. Better attested is ἐγαμήθην Mark x. 12 (though 
not fully established), 1 Cor. vii. 39; Lob. 742. 

γελάω. Fut. γελάσω (for γελάσομαι) Luke vi. 21. See Bttm. 
II. 85, 134. 

γίγνομαι. Aor. Pass. ἐγενήθην for ἐγενόμην Acts iv. 4; Col. 
iv. 11; 1 Thess. ii, 14, etc.; οἵ. Thom. M. p. 189,—an originally 
Doric form frequently found in the writers of the κοινή, Lob. 109; 
Bttm. I. 136. 

δίδωμι. The 1st Aor. ἔδωκα is avoided in the Ist and 2d Per. 
Plur. by Attic writers, and the 2d Aor. used instead, Bttm. I. 509. 
In the N.T., however, we find ἐδώκαμεν 1 Thess. iv. 2, ἐδώκατε 
Matt. xxv. 35; Gal. iv. 15, etc. asin Demosth. On δώσῃ see ὃ 14, 
1 Remark p. 79. 

Ἐδιώκω. Fut. διώξω for διώξομαι Matt. xxiii. 34; Luke xxi.12; 
Bttm. 11. 154. Yet cf. Dem. Nausim. 688 ο.; Xen. An. 1, 4, 8 
(Kri. h. 1.); Cyr. 6, 3, 13. 

δύναμαι. We have merely to remark here that besides the 
Aor. ἐδυνήθην, the (Ion.) form ἠδυνάσθην, with the Augm. 7 too, 
is noted from B among the var. Matt. xvii. 16 (Bttm. 11. 155). 

δύω, δύνω. In several good Codd. we find Mark i. 82 the Ist 
Aor. ἔδυσα, which among the earlier Greeks has only a causative 
meaning, Bttm. 11.156. On the other hand the 1st Aor. δύναντος, 
as inferior authorities give in Luke iv. 40, is found also Ael. 4, 1: 
Pausan. 2, 11, 7. 

εἴδω in the sense of know. Pret. οἴδαμεν Mark xi. 88 ; Jno. iii. 2; 
1 Cor. viii. 1, ete. for ἔσμεν (Poppo, Xen. An. 2,4, 6), οἴδατε Mark 
x. 88; xiii. 33; 1 Cor. ix. 18; Phil. iv. 15 for ἴστε, οἴδασιν Luke 
xi. 44; Jno. x. 5 for ἴσασι ; see Bttm. I. 546 (yet cf. Aristoph. av. 


§ 15, DEFECTIVE VERBS. 85 


599; Xen. Oec. 20,14). The 2d Per. Sing. οἶδας 1 Cor. vii, 16 ; 
Jno. xxi. 15 is rather Ionic and Doric (for οἶσθα), yet it occurs 
Her. 4, 157; Xen. M. 4, 6,6; Eurip. Alc. 790, and frequently in 
later Greek ; see Lob. 236 sq. The 3d Per. Plur, of the Plup. is 
written ἤδεισαν Mark i. 34; Jno. ii. 9; xxi. 4, etc. for ἤδεσαν ; 
Bttm. I. 547. 

εἰπεῖν (2d Aor. εἶπον). 1st Aor. εἶπα in the N.T. in the 2d Per. 
Sing. Matt. xxvi. 25; Mark xii. 32, and frequently. This person 
also occurs in Attic, Xen. Oec. 19,14; Soph. Oed. C. 1509 (along 
with εἶπες, as often in Plato); but it is originally lonic, see Greg. 
Corinth. ed. Schif. p. 481; Schif, Dion. H. p, 486 sq. Imper. 
εἴπατε Matt. x. 27; xxi. 5; Col. iv. 17, εἰπάτωσαν Acts xxiv. 20; 
likewise very common in Attic, Plat, Lach. 187d; Xen. C. 3, 2, 28. 
We find, besides, in good Codd. 3d Per. Plur. Indic, εἶπαν Matt. 
xii. 2; xvii. 24; Mark xi.6; xii. 7,16; Luke v. 33; xix. 59; 
xx.2; Actsi. 11, 24; vi.2; xxviii. 21, ete. (Diod. S. 16,14; Xen. 
H. 3, 5, 24 a var.), the Participle εἴπας Acts vii. 87 ;* xxii. 24 which 
is chiefly Ionic, and even the more unusual Ist Per. εἶπα Heb. 
iii. 10; Acts xxvi. 15 (εἶπον, on the contrary, predominates in the 
N.T.); see Sturz, dial. alex. p.61.1_ Recent editors have adopted 
these forms wherever they are attested by several Codd. In com- 
position we find ἀπειπάμην 2 Cor. iv.2 (Her. 6,100), and προείπαμεν 
1 Thess. iv. 6 (εἴπαμεν in the 1. Turin. Papyrus, p. 10). Εὐπόν 
(not εἶπον, see ὃ 6, 1, k.) Acts xxviii. 26 (according to good Codd.) 
is to be regarded as 2d Aor. Imperative, a form which we now 
find also in the text of Mark xiii. 4; Luke x. 40, while in other 
passages εἰπέ preponderates. The 1st Aor. Pass. of this verb, 
ἐῤῥήθην (from ῥέω, see Bttm. II. 166), is sometimes written in MSS. 


of the N. T. Matt. ν. 21, 31, 33 ἐῤῥέθην, as often in Codd. of later 82 


(non-Attic) authors, though this form oceasionally appears in Attic “τ 


writers also; Lob. 447 (but not in Plato, see Schneider, Plat. civ. ¢ih αἱ 


Il. p. 5sq.). 
ἐκχέω, later form ἐκχύνω (Lob. 726). From it comes Fut. 
ἐκχεῶ for ἐκχεύσω Bttm. I. 396, See ὃ 13, 3. a. p. 77. 
Ἐἐλεάω for éXeéw occurs in several good Codd. in various pas- 


sages of the N.T.,as Rom. ix. 16, 18 ἐλεῶντος, éhed, Jude 23 ἐλεᾶτε. 98 


Also Clem. Al. p. 54, Sylb. (theZFlorent. edition) has ἐλεᾷ. Cf. 
also Etymol. M.327,30. Similar is ἐλλογᾶν Rom. v. 13 ; Philem. 
18, also in good Codd. The latter has been adopted be Lehm., 


1 Εἶπαν occurs also in the well-known Rosetta inscription, at the end of line 8. 


99 


86 § 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS. 


and after him by Tdf. Fr., Rom. I. 811, declares all these forms 
to be errors in copying. 

ἕλκω. From this we find, as regularly in Greek authors, a Pres. 
and an Imperf. Jas. ii. 6; Acts xxi. 30. On the other hand, for 
the Fut. ἕλξω (Mtth. 573) the more unusual ἑλκύσω occurs Jno. 
xii. 32 from the other form ἑλκύω ; οἵ, Job xxxix. 10. 

*émaivéw. Fut. ἐπαινέσω 1 Cor. xi. 22, for ἐπαινέσομαι ; see 
Bttm. 1. 888. Yet cf. Xen. An. 5, 5,8; Himer. 20. In general, 
however, this form is not uncommon ; see Brunck, Gnom. p. 10, 
64; Schaef. Demosth. 11, 465; Stallb. Plat. Symp. p. 139. 

Ἐἐπιορκέω. Fut. ἐπιορκήσω for ἐπιορκήσομαι Matt. v.33. See 
Bttm. 11. 85. , 

ἔρχομαι. The Fut. ἐλεύσομαι, both in the simple verb and its 
compounds, is of frequent occurrence, but particularly in later 
prose authors (Arrian. Al. 6, 12; Philostr. Apoll. 4,4; Dio Chr. 
33, 410; Max. Tyr. 24, p. 295); in Attic, on the contrary, εἶμι is 
used instead (Phryn. p. 37 sq.; Thom. M. p. 88, 336). Yet in the 
earlier authors ἐλεύσομαι also is not altogether infrequent, Her. 
1, 142; 5,125; Lys. Dardan. 12 (p. 233, Bremi) ; see in general 
Lob. 37 sq. ; Schaef. Soph. II. 323; ef. Elmsley, Eurip. Heracl. 210. 
Instead of the Imperf. ἠρχόμην Mark i. 45; ii. 13; Jno. iv. 30; 
vi. 17, etc. Attic authors commonly use the Imperf. of εἶμι, Bttm. 
II. 183 ; yet see Bornem. Lue. p. 106, ef. Thuc. 4, 120,121; Xen. 
An. 4, 6, 22. In Attic the imperatives ἴθι, ive from εἶμι are used 
for ἔρχου, ἔρχεσθε Jno. i. 47. Also ἐρχόμενος is said to be rare in 
earlier Attic, Bttm. as above; yet it occurs in Plato, Crit. ο. 15. 
(Oe for ἐλήλυθε Gal. iv. 4; Jno. xix. 39, etc. has been too hastily 
rejected by Thom. M. p. 418; see Sallier on the passage.) 

ἐσθίω. From the poetic form ἔσθω (Bttm. 11. 185) we find 
the Participle ἔσθων among the var. Mark i. 6; Luke vii. 33, 34; 
x. 7; xx. 47; xxii. 30, which Tdf., on the authority of (a few) 
good Codd., has received into the text; see Praef. p. 21. From 
Sept. cf. Lev. xvii. 10; xix. 26; Sir. xx. 16. 

εὑρίσκω. Aor. Mid. εὑράμην for εὑρόμην Heb. ix. 12, see § 13, 1 
(Paus. 7, 11,1; 8, 30, 4, ete.; cf. Lob. p. 189sq.). A 1st Aor. 
εὕρησα appears in the Subjunctive form εὑρήσῃς Rev. xviii. 14 and 
εὑρήσωσιν ix. 6 (as at least many Codd. have it), unless we take 


83 these forms for the Subjunctive Fut. (see § 18, 1. 6). Lob. 721, 
ΤῺ οἱ, however, produces a Participle εὑρήσαντος. 


80 


faw. Fut. ζήσω Rom. vi. 2, 8; 2 Cor. xiii. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 11; 


δι οἰ, Ino. vi.51,58f. (συξήσω Rom. vi. 8; 2 Tim. ii. 11), ξήσομαι Matt. 


§15. DEFECTIVE VERBS. 87 


ἷν. 4; Mark v. 23; Jno. vi. 51; xi. 25, etc. Ist Aor. ἔζησα Rev. 
ii.8; Luke xv. 24; Rom. vii. 9, etc. (and often in Sept.). These 
are principally later forms, which occur but seldom in early 
authors (see Bttm. IJ. 192). The Aor. is peculiar to later writers. 
Earlier authors used in the Fut. and Aor. the corresponding tenses 
of Biow. 

ἥκω. From the 150 Aor. ἧξα, a later form, Bttm. 11. 194; Lob. 
744, we find the Subjunctive ἥξωσι Rev. iii. 9, where, however, * 
better Codd. have the Fut. ἥξουσι. The Preter. ἧκα (Deut. xxxii. 
17; Phot. biblioth. 222; Malal. pp. 136 and137; Leo Gramm. p. 
98, etc.; Lob. 744) in the form ἥκασι Mark viii. 3 is by no means 
established, though Lchm has adopted it. 

θάλλω. 2d Aor. ἀνεθάλετε Phil. iv. 10, a form not occurring 
in prose, and everywhere rare, Bttm. 11. 195. 

ἵστημι. The Pres. ἱστάνω Rom. iii. 31, and in composition 
συνιστάνω 2 Cor. iii. 1 (iv. 2); v.12; vi.4; x.12,18; Gal. ii. 18, 
was used in Attic (Mtth. 1. 482), but more frequently in later 
Greek (e.g. Cinnam. 214 and 256 ἐφιστάνειν). On the later form 
ἱστάω see ὃ 14, 1,f. p. 78. 

Katakaiw. Fut. κατακαήσομαι 1 Cor. iii. 15; 2 Pet. iii. 10 
(from Aor. κατεκάην Her. 1, 51; 4,79) for κατακαυθήσομαι Rev. 
xviii. 8, which the Attics use, see Thom. M. p.511; Bttm. 11. 211. 

καταλείπω. 150 Aor. κατέλειψα Acts vi. 2; Lob. 714. 

κεράννυμι. Perf. Pass. κεκέρασμαι Rey. xiv. 10, for the more 
usual xéxpawar; see Bttm. II. 214. Analogous is the Participle 
συγκεκερασμένους Heb. iv. 2, in very good Codd. 

kepdaivw. Aor. ἐκέρδησα Matt. xxv. 20; xviii. 15, κερδῆσαι 
Acts. xxvii. 21, κερδήσας Luke ix. 25, κερδήσω Subj. 1 Cor. ix. 19, 
20; Matt. xvi. 26 and frequently, forms peculiar to Ionic prose, 
Bttm. II. 215; Lob.740. In Attic the verb is inflected regularly ; 
ef. 1 Cor. ix. 21. 

κλαίω. Fut. κλαύσω (properly Doric) for κλαύσομαι (as in 
Sept. always) Luke vi. 25; Jno. xvi. 20; Rev. xviii. 9; cf. Babr. 
98,9; Bttm. II. 85, 220. 

κλέπτω. Fut. κλέψω for κλέψομαι Matt. xix.18; Rom. xiii. 9, 
Bttm. II. 85,221. In Sept. never, but in Lucian, dial. deor. 7, 4. 

κράξω. Fut. κράξω Luke xix. 40 according to good authorities 
for κεκράξομαι (as always in Sept.), Aor. ἔκραξα for éxpayov Matt. 106 
Vili. 29; xx. 30, etc., Bttm. II. 223. 

*xpépapat. The form ἐξεκρέμετο Luke xix. 48 in Codd. B [and 
Sin.] of which Griesb. and Schulz take no notice, is undoubtedly 
a mistake of the transcriber. Lchm. also has not noticed it. 


88 § 15, DEFECTIVE VERBS. 


84 κρύπτω. 2d Aor. Act. ἔκρυβον Luke i. 24 (Phot. bibliothec. 
ΤῺ οὐ, T. ». 143, Bekk.), see Bttm. 11. 226. 
κύω (to be pregnant) has the Fut. and Aor. regular in the forms 
κυήσω, ἐκύησα (Bttm. 11. 230). So Jas. i. 18 ἀπεκύησε. In the 
Pres. κυέω occurs, but not, as Eustath. p. 1548, 20 insists, only in 
the sense of bring forth ; see Lob. Aiac. p. 182 sq. and paralip. 556. 

81 Hence in Jas. i. 15 ἀποκυεῖ may be written as well as ἀποκύει, but 

Gh el. αν is not necessary to prefer the former on account of the form of 
the Aorist in vs. 18. The N.T. Lexicons recognize only the form 
KUE®. 

λάσκω. To this belongs the Aor. ἐλάκησα Acts i. 18, usually 
referred to the Doric Pres. λακέω ; but Bttm. II. 233 derives it 
directly from the 2d Aor. λακεῖν, universally in use in Attic. 

Ἐμιαίνω has Tit. i. 15, according to good Codd., in the Perf. 
Participle μεμιαμμένοι for the usual μεμιασμένοι, ef. Lob. 35. 

νίπτω Jno. xiii. 6, 14, νέπτομαι Matt. xv. 2. Instead of this 
Pres. the earlier writers use νίζω ; see Bttm. 11. 249; Lob. 241. 

οἰκτείρω. Fut. οἰκτειρήσω Rom. ix. 15 (as if from οἰκτειρέω) 
for οἰκτερῶ ; cf. Ps. ci. 15; Jer. xxi. 7; Mic. vii. 19, etc. ; also in 
the Byzantines, see Lob. 741. 

ὀμνύω for ὄμνυμι (Bttm. 11. 255) Matt. xxiii. 20 ff.; xxvi. 74; 
Heb. vi. 16; Jas. v.12. But in the better MSS. we find Mark 
xiv. 71 ὀμνύναι for ὀμνύειν, and Griesb. received it into the text. 

*opdo. Imperf. Mid. ὡρώμην Acts ii. 25 (from Ps. xvi.), for 
which ἑωρώμην was used in Attic (Bttm. I. 825). From ὄπτεσθαι 
we find Luke xiii. 28, though not without var., the Ist Aor. Subj. 
ὄψησθε, which occurs in Liban. and the Byzantines ; see Lob. 734. 

παίζω. Aor. évéraéa Matt. xx. 19; xxvii. 31 (Sept. Prov. 
xxiii. 35), for which in Attic ἔπαισα was used; see Bttm. 1. 372. 
But ἔπαιξα. παῖξαι Lucian, dial. deor. 6, 4, and encom. Demosth. 
15; cf. V. Fritzsche, Aristoph. I. 878; and Lob. 240. The Fut. 
παίξω Anacr. 24, 8. 

πέτομαι. Part. πετώμενον Rey. xiv. 6 in B for πετόμενον, from 
the form πετάομαι which occurs only in Ionic (Her. 8, 111) and 
later writers (e.g. Lucian, dial. mort. 15,3 var.), see Bttm. II. 271. 
The Pres. πέταμαι, found even in Pindar, is cited by Wetst. and 
Matthai among the var. Rey. xii. 14. 

1011 πίνω. From the Fut. πίομαι the complete form πίεσαι is es- 
tablished in Luke xvii. 8 (Bttm. I. 347), as in the very same 
passage φάγεσαι from φάγομαι. Both are found also in Ezek. 
xii. 18; Ruth ii. 9,14. On the Inf. wiv Jno. iv. 9, which on the 





} 
: 
; 
: 
Pp 
ἢ 


815. DEFECTIVE VERBS. 89 


authority of good Codd. [also Sin.*] Lehm. and Tdf. [ed. II.] have 
inserted in the text, see Fr. de crit. conformat. etc. p. 27 sq. Only 
the form πεῖν is found in later writers, and this reading of several 85 
Codd. [and Tdf. ed. Ὑ11.7 might perhaps be adopted, if at least Med 
Cod. A vs. 7,10 had not distinctly πιεῖν, thus showing πᾶν vs. 9 to 
be a mistake of the transcriber. 

πίπτω. Aor. ἔπεσα, see ὃ 13,1 p. 73. 

ῥέω. Fut. pevow Juno. vii. 38 for ῥεύσομαι. In Attic, however, 
ῥυήσομαι is the usual form, Lob. 739; Bttm. 11. 287. (As to the 
1st Aor. ῥευσάτωσαν Cant. iv. 16, also used only in later Greek, 
ef. Lob. 739.) The regular and usual 2d Aor. ἐῤῥύην occurs in 
the compound παραρυῶμεν Heb. ii. 1. 

σαλπίζω. Fut. σαλπίσω for σαλπέγξω 1 Cor. xv. 52, ef. also 82 
Mechan. vett. p. 201 (Num. x. 3; also Ist Aor. ἐσάλπισα for Shel 
ἐσάλπιγξα Xen. An. 1, 2,17 is frequent in Sept.), see Phryn. 191; 
Thom. M. p. 789. 

σημαίνω. 150 Aor. ἐσήμανα Acts xi. 28; xxv. 27 (Judg. vii. 
21; Esth. ii. 22; Plutarch, Aristid. 19; Menandri Byz. hist. pp. 
308, 809, 358; Act. Thom. p. 32), which is found indeed even in 
Xen. Hell. 2, 1, 28, but for which in early Attic ἐσήμηνα was the 
usual form, see Bttm. I. 438; Lob. 24. Cf. under φαίνω. 

σκέπτομαι. The Pres. (Heb. ii.6; Jas. i. 27; ef. Ps. viii. 5; 
1 Sam. xi. 8; xv. 4, etc.) and Imperf. occur but seldom in Attic, 
Bttm. II. 291. 

Ἐσπουδάξω. Fut. σπουδάσω for the usual σπουδάσομαι 2 Pet. 
i. 15; Bttm. II. 85. 

στηρίξω. Imperat. Aor. according to good Codd. is στήρισον, 
Luke xxii. 32; Rev. iii. 2, and Fut. 2 Thess. iii, 3 in B ornpice, | 
instead of the forms preferred by Greek authors, στήριξον and 
στηρίξει, Bttm. 1. 372; cf. Judg. xix.5; Ezek. xx. 46, and often; 
also ἐστήρισα 1 Mace. xiv. 14, ete. 

τυγχάνω. Of the Perf. we find Heb. viii. 6 in text. ree. the 
(properly Ionic, then Attic, Bttm. II. 301) form τέτευχε ; but in 
other Codd. the usual Attic τἐτύχηκε, and in A Ὁ [Sin.*] et al. réruye. 
On the latter see Lob. 395. 

φαγεῖν. Fut. φάγομαι Jas. v. 3; Rey. xvii. 16 [Jno. ii. 17] 
(Gen. xxvii. 25; Exod. xii. 8, ete.), whence 2d Per. φάγεσαι Luke 
xvii. 8> For this Greek authors use ἔδομαι from ἔδω. Bttm. IT. 185. 

φαίνω. 1st Aor. Inf. ἐπιφᾶναι (ἐπιφῆναι) Luke i. 79, contrary 
to the best usage. In later Greek, however, similar forms occur ; 
Lob. 26; Thilo, Acta Thom. 49 sq. (Aclian, anim. 2,11; and epil. 102 
p. 396, Jac.). 


90 815. DEFECTIVE VERBS. 


φαύσκω. Hence ἐπιφαύσει Eph. v.14; ef. Gen. xliv. 3; Judg, 
xvi. 2; 1 Sam. xiv. 36; Judith xiv. 2. As to the analogical proof 
of this form, not found in Greek ee by means of the Subs. 
ὑπόφαυσις, see Bttm. 11. 312. 

*dhépw. Aor. Partic. ἐνέγκας Acts v.23; xiv.13 (ἐνέγκαντες Luke 
xv. 23 var.) for ἐνεγκών Bttm. 11. 313; yet see Xen. M. 1, 2, 53; 

86 Demosth. Timoth. 703 ¢.; Isocr. paneg. 40. The Indic. ἤνεγκα 
Τὰ οἱ occurs frequently in Attic, as also the Imperat. forms wan a Juno. 
xxi. 10. 

Ἐφθάνω. According to several Atticists the 2d Aor. ἔφθην is to 
be preferred to the 1st Aor. ἔφθασα, which, however, often occurs 
even in Attic writers (Bttm. 11. 316), and prevails in the N. T. 
Matt. xii. 28; Rom. ix. 31; 2 Cor. x. 14; Phil. iii. 16; 1 Thess. 
ii. 16. In the last passage several Codd. have the Perf. ἔφθακε. 

φύω. 2d Aor. Pass. ἐφύην, φνείς Luke viii. 6, 7, 8 (since Hip- 
pocrat. very much used), for which the Attics employ the 2d Aor. 
Act. ébuv, dis; see Bttm. 11. 321. In Matt. xxiv. 32 and Mark 
xiii. 28 very good Codd. have ἐκφυῇ (Aor. Pass. Subj.) for ἐκφύῃ ; 
and the former reading may be regarded as preferable ; see Fr. 
Mare. 578 sq. 

88 χαίρω. Fut. χαρήσομαι for χαιρήσω Luke.i. 14; Jno. xvi. 20, 
bthel 22; Phil. i. 18 (Hab. i. 16; Zech. x. 7; Ps. xev. 12, and often), 
see Moer. 120; Thom. Mag. 910; Lob. 740; Bttm. 11. 322. It 
occurs also Diod. Exc. Vat. p. 95. 
“χαρίζομαι: Fut. χαρίσομαι Rom. viii. 82. is the non-Attic 
form for ae 

ὠθέω. Aor. ἀπώσατο] Acts vii. 27, 39 (Mic. iv. 6; Lam. ii. 7 
and often, Dion. H. 11. 759), for which the better writers used 
ἐώσατο with syllabic augment (Thom. M. p. 403; Pol. 2, 69, 9; 
15, 31,12). 1st Aor. Pass. ἀπώσθην Ps. Ixxxvii. 6; ef. Xen. Hell. 
4, 3,12; Dio C. 87,47. Also Aor. Act. ἐξῶσεν Acts vii. 45 for 
which some Codd. have ἐξέωσεν (Ellendt, Arrian. Al. 1.181). That 
remark, however, respecting the syll. augm. holds strictly only of 
the Attic authors; see Poppo, Thue. III. II. 407. 

Ἑὠνέομαι. Ast Aor. ὠνησάμην Acts vii. 16, as frequently in 
writers of the κοινή (e.g. Plut., Pausan.), Lob. 189. In Attic 
ἐπριάμην is preferred. 

Note. The later verbal forms are not always used in the N. T. where 

103 they might be expected. We find for instance πίομαι 2d Fut. from πίνω, 


1 After the Fut. éow (from ὥθω). The Aorist form from the other Fut. ὠθήσω occurs 
only in later authors, as e.g. the Particip. εἰρωθήσας in Cinnam. p. 193. 


§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS. ; 91 


and not πιοῦμαι Rey. xiv. 10 (see Bttm. I. 395) ; Aor. κοινῶσαι Mark vii. 
15, 18 etc.; Moeris, ed. Piers. p. 434; Locella, Xen. Ephes. p. 254; Fut. 
φεύξομαι, θαυμάσομαι, and not φεύξω, Gavudow (Bttm. 11. 85). Among 
the various readings occurs Heb. iv. 15 πεπειραμένον from the older form 
πειράω instead of πεπειρασμένον from πειράζω ; the former Tdf. has received 
into the text. 

That the same forms sometimes come by inflection from entirely differ- 
ent verbs is well known; we shall only specify ἐξένευσε Jno. v. 13, which 
grammatically may come equally from ἐκνέω (Bttm. 11. 248) and from 
εκνευω. 


816, FORMATION OF WORDS.1 


The N. T. contains a number of words never occurring in Greek 
authors, but borrowed from the spoken language of the time, and 
in part new formations (particularly in the writings of Paul). 
The greater the number of these peculiar forms, the more necessary 
it becomes to compare them with the established principles of 
Greek derivation (from stems). In doing this, it will be instructive 
to note analogies not altogether unknown to Greek authors, but 
far more prominent in the idiom of the N.T. Our remarks will be 
founded on the luminous exposition of Bttm., which comprehends 
whatever is of essential importance (II. ὃ 118 ff.), ef. Krii. § 41 ff. 


1. A. DeRIvaTION BY TERMINATIONS. a. VerRBS: Of 
derivative verbs (mostly but not entirely from nouns) those in ow 
and «fw are peculiarly frequent. Forms in ow partly superseded 
those in eva or εἐζω ; as, δεκατόω (δεκατεύω Xen. An. 5, 8, 9, etc.), 
ἐξουδενόω (ἐξουδενίζω in Plutarch, yet see in general Lob. 182), 
capow (for σαίρω Lob. 89), κεφαλαιόω (κεφαλίξω Lob. 95), δυναμόω 
and ἐνδυναμόω (Lob. 605, note), ἀφυπνόω (ἀφυπνίζω Lob. 224), 
ἀνακαινόω (ἀνακαινίζω Isocr. Areop. 6. 3), besides μεστόω, δολιόω. 
From δεκατόω comes ἀποδεκατόω ; with ἀφυπνόω compare καθυπνόω 
Xen. M. 2,1, 30. Κραταιόω occurs also for κρατύνω, σθενόω for 
σθενέω, ἀναστατοῦν for ἀνάστατον ποιεῖν ; but χαριτόω is formed 
from χάρις, δυνατόω from δύναμις (Lob. Phryn. 605). 

Verbs in «f@ come from the most diverse stems: ὀρθρίζω from 
ὄρθρος, αἰχμαλωτίζω from αἰχμάλωτος, δευγματίζω from δεῦγμα, 


1 See Ph. Cattieri, Gazophylacium Graecor. (1651, 1708) ed. F. L. Abresch (Utr. 1757) 
L. B. 1809, 8vo., but especially Bitm. ausf. Gr. II. 382 ff. (with Lobeck’s additions), Lobeck, 
Parerga to Phryn., and-his other works referred to above, p. 38. Among expository 
works we must mention chiefly Selecta e Scholis Valckenarii. Specimens of later for- 
mations are to be found especially in the Byzantine authors. 


87 
ith ed. 


84 
6th ed. 


104 


92 Ἷ 816. FORMATION OF WORDS. 


πελεκίζω from πέλεκυς, μυκτηρίζω from μυκτήρ, σμυρνίζω, ἀνεμίξω, 
φυλακίζω, ἱματίζω, ἀναθεματίζω (also in Byzantine authors), θεα- 
τρίζω (Cinnam. p. 213), σπλαγχνίζομαι, αἱρετίζω, συμμορφίζω (Phil. 
iii. 10 according to good Codd.). Σκορπίζω (διασκορπίζων has no 
distinct stem in the Greek literary language; it was, however, a 
provincial, perhaps a Macedonic, form (Lob. 218). 
As to verbs in «fw from names of nations and persons, see Bttm. 
TI. 885. We have only to mention ἰουδαΐζω, with which rip toc 
the later word δαυϊδίζω, Leo Gram. p. 447. 
There are also a few verbs in α ζω seldom or never occurring 
elsewhere, e.g. νηπιάζω, σινιάζω (σήθω). 
88 Also in eva, as μεσιτεύω, μαγεύω, ἐγκρατεύομαι, αἰχμαλωτεύω 
Ἰὰ εἰ. (Lob. 442), παγιδεύω, γυμνητεύω. The last is from γυμνήτης, 
which, according to Bttm. II. 431, is only to be vindicated as a 
collateral form of γυμνής. From γυμνός, on the other hand, one 
would expect γυμνίτης, and accordingly the best Codd. [Sin. also] 
have 1 Cor. iv. 11 γυμνυτεύω, which therefore we. must not, with 
Fr. (conform. crit. p. 21) and Mey., take for an error of the copyist.! 
Among verbs in vy@, which signify a rendering what the 
(concrete) root denotes (as ἱλαρύνειν, i.e. ἱλαρὸν ποιεῖν) Bttm. 11. 
387, σκληρύνω is to be noticed as ἃ collateral form of σκληρόω, 
which never occurs in the N. T. 
Verbs in atv@ (λευκαίνω, Enpaiva, εὐφραίνω Bttm. 11. 65 f. ; Lob. 
prolegg. pathol. 37) require no special remark. 
The formation of verbs in 0, from primitives in ¢@, which is 
not unknown in Attic (Bttm. Il. 61; Lob. 151), seems to have 
85 been practised more frequently in later Greek ; νήθω, κνήθω, ἀλήθω, 
δι} οἱ. are not used at least by the earlier writers. Yet ef. Lob. 254. 
Verbs in oxw (except εὑρίσκω and διδάσκω) are rare even in 
105 the N. T. (Bttm. 11. 59f,). We find γηράσκω as an inchoative 
(Bttm. IT. 393), but μεθύσκω, causative from μεθύω, only in the 
Pass. Γαμίσκω, equivalent to γαμίζω, is sufficiently attested only 
in Luke xx. 34. Lastly, we note as altogether singular in forma- 
tion γρηγορέω (from the Perf. éypyyopa), with its cognate ἐγρηγορέω, 
Lob. 119;°Bttm. II. 158. With this verb,? derived from a redu- 
plicated Perfect, may be compared, however, ἐπικεχειρέω Papyri 
Taurin. 7, lin. 7. 
1 Cf, Lob. Soph. Ai. p. 387. Ὀλοθρεύω Heb. xi. 28 is, in some good Codd., written 
ὀλεθρεύω (from ὄλεθρος), and Lchm., and with him Tdf,, has so printed. I am not 
aware that the latter form of this Alexandrian word has been preserved anywhere else. 


2 Déderlein on reduplication in Greek and Latin derivation in his Reden und Auf- 
satze II. no. 2. 


816. FORMATION OF WORDS. 93 


To derivative verbs in evw belongs also παραβολεύεσθαι Phil. ii. 30, 
(which Griesb., Lchm., and others, agreeably to the weightiest critical 
evidence, have admitted into the text). From παράβολος might have been 
formed most naturally παραβολεῖσθαι ; but the termination evw was selected 
to make the verb signify παράβολον εἶναι, as ἐπισκοπεύειν in later Greek 
denotes ἐπίσκοπον εἶναι (Lob. 591), and, what is more to the purpose, 
there is περπερεύεσθαι from πέρπερος. It would be unwarrantable to grant 
admission to παραβολεύεσθαι only on the assumption of a simple verb 
βολεύεσθαι, (which certainly does not occur). 


2. Ὁ. SussTantives:! Derived a. from Verbs (cf. Lob. paralip. 
Ρ. 397 sqq. and particularly lib. 3 of technologia p. 253 sqq.). 

With the termination wos (Bttm. II. 398) from a verb in afo 
is to be noted ἁγιασμός which does not occur in Greek authors, 
like πειρασμός from πειράζω, ἐνταφιασμός from ἐνταφιάζω ; from 
verbs in fw we find paxapropos, ὀνειδισμὸς (Lob. 551), βασανισμός, 89 
παροργισμός, ῥαντισμὸς (ῥαντίζειν), σαββατισμός (σαββατίζεινυ, Th ed 
σωφρονισμός, ἀπελεγμός. 

The most numerous formations, however, are those in wa (Lob. 
as above 391 sqq.) and σις, the former mostly confined to the N. T. 
yet always conformed to Greek analogy ; as, βάπτισμα, ῥάπισμα 
from βαπτίζειν etc., ψεῦσμα from ψεύδεσθαι, ἱεράτευμα, κατάλυμα 
(καταλύειν), also ἐξέραμα (Lob. 64), ἀσθένημα, ἄντλημα, ἀντάλ- 
λαγμα, ἀποσκίασμα, πρόςκομμα, ἀπαύγασμα, ἥττημα, αἴτημα, κατόρ- 
θωμα, στερέωμα from contract verbs (like φρόνημα, etc.), mostly 
in the sense of product or state. Only ἄντλημα denotes an imple- 
ment (as substantiyes in pos often do), and κατάλυμα the place 
of καταλύειν (Kustath. Odyss. p. 146, 33). 

Substantives in ov, particularly numerous in the Epistle to the 106 
Hebrews, nearly all belong to literary Greek. Only θέλησις, κατά- 
παυσις, πρόςχυσις,Σ ἀπολύτρωσις, δικαίωσις, βίωσις, πεποίθησις Lob. 
295 (ἐπιπόθησις) require notice. As to παρασκευή, formed from 
the stem of a verb in afm, see Bttm. II. 404. As to οἰκοδομή, see 
Lob. 490. As to the very common διαθήκη (from 1st Aor. of Ὅν 
τιθέναιν. see Bttm. II. 401; Lob. paralip. 374. 

Among abstract nouns from verbs are some in μονή. We find 
in the N. T. πλησμονή Bttm. 1.405. On the contrary, ἐπιλησμονή 
comes directly from ἐπιλήσμων. Πεισμονή, however (also in 


1 Cf. G. Curtius, de nomin. gr. formatione linguar. cognat. ratione habita. Berol. 1842 
(Zeitschr. f. Alterth. 1846, no. 68 f.). 

2 The form xvoi appears to have been employed only in words compounded with 
other nouns. Compare the N. T. word αἱματεκχυσία (Leo Gramm. p. 287) with αἷμα- 
τοχυσία (Theophan. p. 510), φωτοχυσία and ῥινεγχυσία. 


94 § 16, FORMATION OF WORDS. 


Pachym. 11. 100 and 120), is another form of πεῖσμα, though 
πεισμονή may be referred directly to πείθω, as πλησμονή to πλήθω. 
Among abstract nouns in the N.T. derived from verbs in evo 
must be mentioned ἐριθεία.1 

Verbal nouns with a concrete signification present little that is 
peculiar. From verbs in afw, Sw, vfw, we find in the N. T. κτίστης 
(paroxyt.) and the oxytones (Bttm. 11. 408) βιαστής, βαπτιστής, 
μεριστής, εὐωγγελιστής, γογγυστής, and ἑλληνιστής,2 forms rare or | 

90 unknown elsewhere. Only κολλυβιστής, (which is not peculiar 

Τὰ αἱ. however to the N.T.), cannot be traced to a verb κολλυβίζειν. 
From τελειοῦν we have τελειωτής (cf. ζηλωτής and λυτρωτής). 
From προςκυνεῖν comes προςκυνητής (Constant. Man. 4670). On 
ἐπενδύτης see Bttm. II.411. The earlier writers prefer διωκτήρ to 
διώκτης ; just as dorns appears as a secondary form by the side of 
δοτήρ. 

Very strange would be the formation οἵ κατάνυξις from κατα- 
νυστάξω Rom. xi. 8 (from Sept.) as was formerly supposed. But 
its connection with cataviccew is evident from Dan. x. 9, Theod., 
and thus it very probably denotes stwpefaction (τε Ps. Ix. 5), 
and thence torpor; see Fr. Excur. Rom. 11. 558 sqq. 

107 From careless pronunciation arose the form ταμεῖον, as all good 
Codd. have Luke xii. 24 and many Codd. have Matt. vi. 6, for 
ταμιεῖον (from ταμιεύων) see Lob. Phryn. 493 and paralip. 28, and 
the compound γλωσσόκομον for γλωσσοκομεῖον or γλωσσοκόμιον 
(from xouéw) without var., see Lob. 98 sq. 

β. From Adjectives. Under this head come, 

Various abstract nouns in τῆς, οτῆς, as ἁγιότης, ἁγνότης, ἀδελ- 
φότης (Leo Gramm. p. 464), ἁδρότης, ἁπλότης, ἱκανότης, ἀφελότης 
(ἀφέλεια in earlier authors), σκληρότης, τιμιότης, τελειότης, μαται- 
OTNS, γυμνότης, μεγαλειότης, κυριότης, αἰσχρότης, πιότης (ἀγαθότης 
Sept.), see Lob. 860 sqq. (ἀκαθάρτης Rev. xvii. 4 is not well 

- attested) ; 

1 The connection of ἐριθεία with ἔρις is not prevented by the @ alone (for that occurs 
in the cognates ἐρέθειν, ἐρεθίζειν), but its whole structure is such that it can only be 
referred to ἐριθεύω. But Fr. Rom. I. 143 sqq. has satisfactorily shown that ἐριθεία even 
in the N. T. is nothing else than the ἐριθεία, labor for wages, already known to the Greeks. 
Among earlier writers see Stolberg, de soloec. N. T. p. 136 Βα. 

2 Ἑλληνίζειν signifies in general to comport one’s self as a Greek (Diog. L. I. 102), and 
most usually to speak Greek, especially of foreigners, Strabo 14, 662; then often it has 
no unfavorable secondary meaning, (erroneously de Wette, Bibel, reprinted from the 
Hall. Encycl. S. 17), Xen. A. 7, 8, 25; Strabo 2, 98. Ἑλληνιστής, therefore, —a sub- 
stantive which never occurs in Greek authors, — means very naturally a Greek-speaking 


non-Greek (e.g. a Jew). That in Christian Greek phraseology ἑλληνίζειν. also signifies 
to be a heathen (e.g. in Malalas p. 449) is a fact lying beyond our present inquiry. 


816. FORMATION OF WORDS. 95 


And such substantives in συνη (denoting mental qualities) as 
ἐλεημοσύνη and ἀσχημοσύνη (from ἐλεήμων and ἀσχήμων, cf. 
σωφροσύνη from σώφρων), oF ἁγιωσύνη, ἀγαθωσύνη, ἱερωσύνη, 
μεγαλωσύνη, with w, because the penult of the adjectives is short 
(Etym. M. p. 275, 44) 1—all later words found only in Hellenistic 
writers ; cf. in general Lob. prolegg. pathol. p. 235 sqq. 

Also among those in sa which come from adjectives in os, pos 
(Bttm, I. 415) are many later formations (Lob. 343) ; as, ἐλαφρία 
(like. αἰσχρία in Eustath. from αἰσχρός) ; and as εὐδαιμονία from 
εὐδαίμων, so 2 Pet. ii. 16 παραφρονία from παράφρων (Lob. prolegg. 
pathol. p. 238); some Codd., however, have the more usual 
παραφροσύνη. ; 

Lastly, we often find Neuters of adjectives in sos used as substan- 
tives; as, ὑποζύγιον, μεθόριον, ὑπολήνιον, σφάγιον (προςφάγιον), 
etc., see Fr. Priilimin. S. 42. 

_y. From other Substantives (Bttm. II. 420 ff.) are derived εἰδω- 
λεῖον (εἴδωλονγ, ἐλαιών (ἐλαία), μυλών Matt. xxiv. 41 var. (μύλος, 
μύλην Bttm. H. 422f. and the Fem. βασίλισσα (Bttm. I. 427). 
᾿Αφεδρών, peculiar to the N.T., comes from ἕδρα. The Gentile 
Fem. from Φοίνεξ is Φοίνισσα ; therefore also Mark vii. 26 Supo- 
doivicca, as from Κίλιξ comes Κίλισσα (Bttm. 1.427). Perhaps, 
however, the Fem. was also formed from the name of the country 
Φοινίκη ; for, a large number of good Codd. [Sin. also] have in 
the above passage in Mark Συροφοινίκισσα, cf. Fritzsche, and this 
might come directly from an original form Φοινικίς, as βασίλισσα 
is connected with βασιλίς, and, at least among the Romans, Scy- 
thissa occurs for Σ᾽ κυθίς, or in later Greek φυλάκισσα by the side 
of φυλακίς. See in general Lob. prolegg. pathol. p. 413 sqq. 

To the later and Latinizing formation belong, of Gentile and 
Patronymic nouns, ᾿Ηρωδιανός Matt. xxii. 16 and Χριστιανός Acts 
xi. 26, etc. (cf. Καισαριανός Arrian. Epict. 1, 19,19; 3, 24, 117). 
In the earlier language, the termination avos was employed only 


in forming Gentile names from cities and countries not Greek ; 
Bttm. 11. 429. 


1 Yet in Glycas, p. 11, even in the later edition, μεγαλοσύνη is printed. Bttm. ΤΙ. 420, 
shows that nearly all substantives in ὠσύνη belong to the later language. On the ter- 
mination συνὴ in general, see Aufrecht in the Berl. Zeitschr. f. vergleich. Sprachforsch. 
6 Heft ; [and on the termination της G. Biihler, das griech. Secundarsuffix της. Ein 
Beitrag z. Lehre v. d. Wortbildung. Gott. 1858. 8vo.]. 

2 Of substantives derived from adjectives in ns, some, as is well known, end in ta 
instead of era (Bttm. 11. 416). In others, the spelling varies between ta and ea, as in 
κακοπαθία (cf. Poppo, Thue. I. 1.154. Ellendt, praef. ad Arrian. p. 30sqq. Weoer, 
Demosth. p. 511). In regard to this word, however, the preponderance is for e:a. 


87 


Gth ed 


91 


τὰ ed, 


108 


88 
6th od. 


109 


92 
Tth ed. 


96 § 16. FORMATION OF WORDS. 


Among Diminutives deserves to be mentioned βιβλαρίδιον, pri- 
marily from βιβλάριον, quoted by Pollux, instead of the older 
forms βιβλίδιον and βιβλιδάριον (like ἱματιδάριον from iparidiov), 
Lob. pathol. 281. Τυναικάριον follows the usual analogy, but 
seems to have been of rare occurrence in Greek authors; the same 
may be said of ὠτάριον Mark xiv. 47; Jno. xviii. 10, κλινάριον, 
παιδάριον. On diminutives in cov (of which ψυχίον is unquestion- 
ably a later form), see Fr. Priilim. S. 43, and a dissertation De 
vocib. in éov trisyllabis by Janson in Jahn’s Archiv VII. 485 ff. 

Substantives in ypvov are properly Neuters of adjectives (Bttm. II. 412 f.); 
as, ἱλαστήριον, θυμιατήριον, φυλακτήριον. (Such become still more numerous 
in later writers, e.g. ἀνακαλυπτήριον Niceph. Gregor. p. 667, δεητήριον 
Cedren. 11. 377, θανατήριον ibid. I. 679, ἰαματήριον I. 190, etc.) Φυλα- 
κτήριος, directly from φυλακτήρ, has like it an active meaning — guarding, 
protecting. Ἱλαστήριον properly signifies something that propitiates, but. 
may be applied to the place where the propitiation is accomplished (just 
as φυλακτήριον denotes a guard-post), and consequently to the cover of 
the ark of the covenant. In Rom. iii. 25 the signification propitiatory 
offering (Index to Theoph. contin.) is equally appropriate, which Philippi 
without sufficient reason has recently denied. A Fem. subst. of the same 
sort is ζευκτηρία (cf. στυπτηρία). Σωτηρία is connected immediately with 
σωτήρ ; side by side with it occurs σωτήριον also as a substantive. Ὕπερῷον, 
that is ὑπερώϊον, is to be regarded in like manner as a Neuter from ὑπερώϊος, 
which, like πατρῷος from πατήρ, is formed from the preposition ὑπέρ, for 
there is no intermediate adjective ὕπερος. 


3. c. ADJECTIVES: a. To adjectives derived directly from a verbal 
root belongs the fully established πειθός 1 Cor. ii. 4; cf. ἐδός from 
ἔδω, βοσκός from βόσκω, φειδός from (eidw) φείδομαι (Lob. Phryn. 
p. 484). These derivatives are all oxytones, dayos alone occurring 
in the grammarians as also a paroxytone (Lob. paralip. 135), and 
it is written as such in the N. T. 

Among those in dds, ἁμαρτωλός is the most frequent (Bttm. IT. 
448). To be referred to the same formation, however, is εἰδωλον 
Neut. from εἴδωλος (Lob. pathol. p. 184). 

Verbals in ros (Bttm. J. 448 ff.; Lob. paralip. 478 sq.; Mois- 
zisstzig, de adject. graec. verbal. Conitz 1844, 4to.) correspond in 
signification, sometimes to the Latin participle in ¢us, as γνωστὸς 
motus, σιτευτός saginatus, ἀπαίδευτος (untrained, awkward) cf. 
θεόπνευστος inspiratus 1; sometimes to adjectives in bilis, as ὁρατός, 


1 That this word in 2 Tim. iii. 16 is to be taken in a passive sense, there can be no 
doubt; this acceptation is confirmed by ἔμπνευστος, though several derivatives of the 
same class have an active signification, as εὔπνευστος, ἄπνευστος. 


816. FORMATION OF WORDS. O7 


δυςβάστακτος, ἀνεκτός, ἀκατάσχετος, ἀκαταπαυστός, ἀνεκδιήγητος, 
ἀνεκλάλητος ; sometimes they have an active meaning (Fr. Rom. 
II. 185), as ἄπταιστος not stumbling, i.e. not sinning (certainly, 
however, not ἀλάλητος Rom. viii. 26). 

᾿Απείραστος (like the ἀπείρατος usual in Greek authors) means 
either wntempted, or that cannot be tempted ; both amount to the 
same thing in Jas. i. 13. Only παθητός Acts xxvi. 23, signifies 
who is to suffer ; cf. φευκτός, mpaxtos Aristot. de anima 3,9, Ὁ. 64 
Sylb.; Cattier, gazophyl. p. 84. The verbal προςήλυτος, akin to 
the forms ἔπηλυς, μέτηλυς, is an extended formation of which no 
example is to be found in classic Greek. 

8. Among adjectives derived from other adjectives (or parti- 
ciples) a few are deserving of special notice. Such are περιούσιος, 
ἐπιούσιος, like ἑκούσιος, ἐθελούσιος (Lob. Phryn. p. 4sq.), which 
are extended formations from ἑκών and ἐθέλων like the feminines 
ἑκοῦσα, ἐθελοῦσα ; but ἐπιούσιος [according to Leo Meyer, in Kuhn’s 
Ztschr. fiir vergleichende Sprachforschung. Bd. VII. Berl. 1858. 
pp- 424 sq. 428, formed by means of the suffix vo from ἐπί and ὄντ, 
and that denoting “ what is ἐπί, so that ἄρτος ἐπιούσιος signifies 
“bread that is serviceable, or suited, or necessary for life, for 
subsistence, that which answers our needs, is adequate for them ᾽] 
has probably direct relation to the Fem. (ἡ) ἐπιοῦσα sc. ἡμέρα, and 
accordingly ἄρτος ἐπιούσιος means bread for the following day, cf. 
Stolberg, diss. de pane ἐπιουσίῳ in his tractat. de soloecism. N. T. 
p- 220sqq.; Valcken. Select. I. 190; Fr. ad Mt. p. 267 sq. (also 


against the derivation from οὐσία, which would be grammatically 89 
possible, cf. ἐνούσιος). Besides, περιούσιος in the Bible does not ‘hed 


mean simply proprius, in opposition to what belongs to a stranger, 
any more than περιουσιασμός in the Sept. means property merely. 


Πιστικός (Mark xiv. 3; Jno. xii. 3) from πιστός, according to 110 


several ancient expositors equivalent to genuine. In classic authors 
the word signifies convincing, probably also persuasive (Plat. Gorg. 
468 ἃ. ; Diog. L. 4,37; Dion. H. V. 631; Sext. Emp. Math. 2,71; 
Theophrast. metaph. 253 Sylb.), though in nearly all the passages 
Codd. have πειστικός, and critics have usually given this the pref- 
erence (see Bekker and Stallb. on Plato, as above ; cf. Lob. Soph. 
Ai. v. 151); in later writers faithful, trustworthy, of persons 


(Liicke, Joh. II. 496; see Index to Cedren. p. 950). The tran- 93 
sition to the signification genuine as the predicate of a material ™* 


object, is not impossible, particularly when it is considered that 


technical expressions (such as νάρδος πιστιική may be), and espec- 
18 


98 816. FORMATION OF WORDS. 


ially mercantile terms, are often strange.! Others, after Casaubon, 
take πιστικός for drinkable (Fr. Mr. 598 sqq.) from πιπίσκω or the 
root πίω, like πιστός drinkable Aeschyl. Prom. 480, πιστήρ, πίστρα, 
πίστρον, etc., quoted in old Lexicons. That the ancients drank 
oil of spikenard, we are told by Athenaeus 15, 689. I cannot, 
however, quite understand why both Evangelists subjoined this 
epithet ; if the thin, liquid nard- used for pouring out (Mark 
καταχέειν) in no respect differed from what was drunk, it would 
have been just as superfluous to add the epithet wiot..as to call 
nard fluid. ‘The vapdos λεπτή of Dioscorides, however, means fluid 
nard, as opposed to thick, viscid nard. Besides, the drinkable nard 
would not be suited to the manipulation indicated by ἀλείφειν 
in John. Lastly, Fritzsche’s translation of riot. (ad Mr. p. 601), 
“qui facile bibi potest, lubenter bibitur,’ does not appear to be 
sufficiently established, not to mention that πιστικός cannot be 
positively shown to have signified drinkable. Even πιστός itself 
was not much in use (in Aeschyl. it occurs in a pun), and was 
superseded by the unambiguous ποτός, πόσιμος. 

y. To adjectives derived from substantives belong, among others, 
σάρκινος and σαρκικός. ‘The former means fleshy 2 Cor. iii. 3 (as 
pro-paroxytone adjectives in wos almost without exception denote 
the material of which a thing is made, e.g. λίθινος of stone 2 Cor. 
iii. 8, ξύλινος wooden, πήλινος of clay, ἀκάνθινος, Bicowos, etc., 
Bttm. 11. 448), the latter (σαρκικός) means fleshly. There is, 

111 however, in Rom. vii. 14; 1 Cor. iii. 1 (2 Cor. i. 12); Heb. vii. 16, 
where one might have expected σαρκικός, preponderating or respec- 
90 table authority for cdpxwos, and even Lehm. has placed it in the 
fhe toxt. But how easily might σαρκικός, which does not occur outside 
of the N.T., be confounded in the Codd. with the very common 
σάρκινος (Fr. Rom. II. 46sq.)! Had Paul, however, written σάρ- 
xwvos, he must have intended some peculiar emphasis, somewhat 
in the way that Mey., 1 Cor. as above, insists upon. But on the 
one hand, a notion of the natural man for which only the material 
term σάρκινος would be adequate finds no sanction in the doctrinal 
teaching of Paul, while σαρκικός, as opposed to πνευματικός, fully 
meets the demands even of the text in question ; and on the other 


1 They have in particular this peculiarity, that words elsewhere used only of persons 
are transferred to articles of merchandise. Compare flat, properly equivalent to feeble, 
and the expressions, “ Sugar dull —wheat unasked for.” Job. paralip. 31 upholds 
Scaliger’s derivation from πτίσσω (Fr. Mr. p. 595), as τ΄ after π᾿ elsewhere also for 
euphony’s sake is thrown away (cf. πτέρνιξ, πέρνιξ, but particularly πίτυρον and the 
Latin pisso). Mey. has not been induced to abandon the interpretation genuine. 


§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS. 99 


hand, 1 Cor. iii. 8, taken in connection with 2, shows that in both 94 
passages Paul employed the same expression. In the passage from Ἰδὲ 
Heb. (vii. 16) ἐντολὴ σαρκίνη is hardly admissible. 

Among oxytone adjectives in wos, expressing ἃ notion of time 
(Bttm. IL. 448), are καθημερινός, ὀρθρινός, mpwivds, later forms for 
which earlier authors used καθημέριος, ete. The like holds true 
of ταχινός. 

Some adjectives derived from substantives end in εινός ; AS, σκο- 
τεινός, φωτεινός. But ἐλεεινός (a form not unfrequent in Attic 
also V. Fritzsche, Aristoph. I. 456) comes from the verb ἐλεέω, as 
ποθεινός from ποθέω (Bttm. 11. 448). 

To the later adjectival formations specially belongs κεραμικός 
(κεράμειος, κεράμιος). 

Among adverbs derived from verbs φειδομένως seems to be 
peculiar to the N. T. 


4. B. Derivation By Composition. a. The N.T. con- 
tains numerous compound substantives whose first part also is a 
substantive. Although many of these compounds, however, cannot 
be shown to have existed in the written language of the Greeks, 
yet in their formation there is nothing noticeably at variance with 
analogy. Compare in particular δικαιοκρισία (Leo Gr. p. 163), 
αἱματεκχυσία, ταπεινόφρων (like εὐσεβόφρων, κραταιόφρων Constant. 
Porphyr. II. 88, by later authors even ἰουδαιόφρων, ἑλληνόφρων 
Cedren. I. 660; Theoph. I. 149) and ταπεινοφροσύνη (cf. ματαιο- 
φροσύνη Constant. Man. 657), σκληροκαρδία, σκληροτράχηλος (from 
which we find σκληροτραχηλία and σκληροτραχηλιᾶν in Constant. 
Man.), axpoSvetia,? ἀκρογωνιαῖος, ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος (οἷ. ἀλλο- 


1 ΤΊ might perhaps be assumed in general that the later popular Greek interchanged 
these forms, and used odpxtvos also in the sense of σαρκικός : especially as not all adjec- 
tives in ἐνὸς signify the material of which a thing is made, cf. ἀνθρώπινος (see δ. Rom. 
IL. 47; ,.Tholuck, Hebr.-Br, 301 f.). Somewhat similar in German is the expression 
das Inwendige of man for das Innere. The former had originally a more restricted 
meaning. Since, however, the term σαρκικός had already established itself undeniably 
in the language of the N. T., the above assumption loses here all foundation. 

2 Wenn dieses Wort anders von βύζω, βύω mit Etymol. m. abzuleiten ist, was neuer- 
lich Fr. Rom. I. 136 bestritten hat, theils weil βύω nicht scheine tegere geheissen zu 
haben (wie bei dieser Etymologie angenommen wird), theils weil das Wort nicht be- 
stimmt das Glied bezeichne, dessen Extremitiit bedeckt sei, also nicht verstanden worden 
sein wiirde. Jener erste Grund scheint mir durchgreifender als der zweite. Ich méchte 
aber glauben, dass ἀκροβυστία nicht eine absichtslose Umbildung des griech. ἀκροποσθία, 
sondern geflissentliche Umgestaltung sei, welche aus Schaam die Sache verdeckt aus- 
driicken sollte: ἀκρόβυστος vorn (an der Spitze) strotzend von Unbeschnittenen im 
Gegensatz der Beschnittenen, deren vorderes Schaamglied glatt und straff war. Es ist 


. 


91 
6th od. 
112 


95 


100 § 16. FORMATION OF WORDS. 


τριοπραγμοσύνη Plato, rep. 4, 444 b.), ἀνθρωπάρεσκος (Lob. 621), 
ποταμοφόρητος (cf. ὑδατοφόρητος Const. Man. 409), καρδιογνώστης 
(καρδιόπληκτος Theoph. I. 736, καρδιοκολάπτης Leo Gr. 441), 
σητόβρωτος, ὀφθαλμοδουλεία, εἰδωλολάτρης, εἰδωλόθυτον (Cedren. 
I, 286, cf. the abstract εἰδωλοθυσία Theophan. 415), δεσμοφύλαξ 


- wwroptra— Theophan. 1. 608), ὁρκωμοσία (cf. ἀπωμοσία, κατωμο- 


cia), πατροπαράδοτος (θεοπαράδοτος Theophan. I. 627), ἰσώγγελος 
(Theoph. I. 16), εὐπερίστατος, πολυποίκιλος, the Adverb παμπληθεί 
(the Adj. παμπληθής is found in good authors), εἰλικρινής, eis 
κρίνεια (Fuhr, Dicaearch. p. 198). 

To the compound δευτερόπρωτος in Luke vi. 1 (?) comes nearest 
δευτεροδεκάτη found in Jerome on Ezek. c.45. As the latter means 
second-tenth, so the former second-jirst. 

Awédexadvnros, the Neut. of which is used as a noun in Acts xxvi. 
T, is sustained by τετράφυλος Her. 5, 66. 

More rarely is the first part of the compound a verb, as in 
ἐθελοθρησκεία self-chosen worship ; cf. ἐθελοδουλία. 

Compound adjectives whose first part is @ privative exhibit 
nothing anomalous, though perhaps many of them were not current 
in written Greek (ἀμετανόητος, ἀνεξερεύνητος, aveEvyviactos) ; only 
ἀνέλεος Jas. ii. 13, which Lehm. on the authority of good Codd. 
[Sin. also] has received into the text instead of ἀνίλεως, is singular, 
as the Greeks used ἀνηλεής, or at least ἀνελεής (Lob. 710). 
᾿Ανέλεος would be formed like ἄνελπις, ἄπαις, and may have been 
intended as a verbal antithesis to ἔλεος. Even Bttm. II. 467 con- 
sidered the a of the verb ἀτενίζω, derived from the Adj. ἀτενής, to 
be the so-called a intensive ; but it is better to take it, with Lob. 
pathol. I. 85, for a formative. See besides Déderlein, de ἄλφα 
intensivo sermonis graeci, Erl. 1830, 4to. 

Ὁ. When the last part of the compound is a verb — in compound 
verbs. therefore —the verbal stem is regularly found unaltered 
only in combination with the so-called old prepositions (Sealiger 
in Lob. Phryn. 266; Bttm. 11. 469f.); in other cases with a 
change so far forth as the verb strictly speaking first adopts its 
ending from a noun formed out of the stem, as ἀδυνατεῖν, ὁμολογεῖ- 
σθαι, νουθετεῖν, εὐεργετεῖν, τροποφορεῖν, ὀρθοτομεῖν (cf. ὀρθοτομία 


so in der Art euphemistischer Ausdriicke, dass sie allgemein gehalten werden ; die, 
unter welchen sie gangbar werden, verstandigen sich bald tiber ihren Sinn. 

1 Cf. ἀνθρωπολάτρης Ephraem. p. 743, πυρσολάτρης Pachym. 134; Geo. Pisid. Heracl. 
1, 14, 182, ψευδολάτρης Theodos. acroas. 2, 73, likewise χριστολάτρης frequent in Byzan- 
tine authors. 


§ 16, FORMATION OF WORDS. - 101 


Theophan. cont. p. 812), ἀγαθοεργεῖν and dyaboupyeiv,' μετριο- 
παθεῖν, etc. 

This rule, however, has some undoubted exceptions ; Scaliger 113 
long ago pointed out δυςθνήσκω in Eurip. (ef. Bttm. II. 472). 
Εὐδοκεῖν, therefore, is directly formed from δοκεῖν, and not, as 
Passow maintained, from an intermediate noun δόκος (Fr. Rom. 

II. 870); it arose simply from a combination of the words in 
speaking ; cf. Bttm. 11.470. The same remark applies to καραδοκεῖν 
(not to be referred to δοκεύω, Fritzschior. opusc. p. 151) ; no noun 92 
καραδόκος exists. Even ὁμείρεσθαι, which in 1 Thess. ii. 8 the ‘Het 
better Codd. [Sin. also] have instead of ἱμείρεσθαι, might be ad- - 
missible, were it to be derived from ὁμοῦ, ojos and εἴρειν (Fr. Mr. 

p- 792). To be sure, no verb of the kind with du. is to be found 96 
elsewhere ; for ὁμαδέω comes from ὅμαδος ; and ὁμοδρομεῖν, ὁμοδο- Thad 
ξεῖν, ὁμευνετεῖν, ounpevew, ὁμοζυγεῖν, ὁμιλεῖν, even ὁμονοεῖν (Bttm. 

II. 473), are likewise derived from nouns. Besides, the Genitive, 
governed as above by the verb, would be strange (cf. Mtth. IT. 907). 
Perhaps, however, the first objection should not be pressed in the 
case of a word formed in the language of the people. If μείρεσθαι, 
which occurs in Nicand. Ther. 400 for ἱμείρεσθαι, were the original 
form, μείρεσθαι and ὁμείρεσθαι might exist side by side as well as 
δύρεσθαι and ὀδύρεσθαι; indeed ὀμείρεσθαι is perhaps the true 
reading (Lob. Pathol. 72). 

A formation peculiar to the Hellenistic idiom is προςωποληπτεῖν 
(προςωπολήπτης, προςωποληψία Theodos. acroas. 1, 32, ἀπροςωπο- 
λήπτως, Acta apocr. p. 86). A corresponding verb is ἀκαταληπτεῖν 
in Sext. Emp. I. 201; for the concrete derivative, however, compare 
δωρολήπτης and ἐργολήπτης in the Sept.; and for the abstract 
προςωποληψία, cf. ἐρωτοληψία Ephraem. pp. 3104, 7890; Nicet. 
Eugen. 4, 251. 

Many other compound nouns of this sort, in which, as in προς- 
ὡπολήπτης, θανατηφόρος," the second part is derived from a verb 
while the first denotes the object, etc. (Bttm. I. 478), occur in 
the N. T. but are unknown to the Greeks: e.g. δεξιολάβος he who 
takes position at one’s right, hence an attendant. 

_ From such compounds arise in turn, not only abstract nouns 
(cxnvornyia even, belongs to this class, as though from oxnvornyds, 


1 On these forms see Bitm. Π. 457. Against οἰκουργεῖν and οἰκουργός (Tit. ii. 5 var.) 
ef. Fr. de crit. conform. p. 29. 

2 Also αὐθάδης is a compound of this description, from αὐτός and few, ἥδεσθαι Bttm. 
TI. 458. 


102 § 16. FORMATION OF WORDS. 


according to numerous analogies, as KAworgyia), but also verbs: 
λιθοβολεῖν from λιθοβόλος (cf. ἀνθοβολεῖν, OnpoBoreiv, ἡλιοβο- 


114 λεῖσθαι, etc.), ὀρθοποδεῖν from ὀρθόπους, δεξιολαβεῖν Leo Gram. 


93 


6th αἱ, 


97 


Tih ed. 


p. 175 (Bttm. Il. 479). 


In decomposite verbs, the preposition which constitutes the double 
composition is naturally put first, as ἀπεκδέχεσθαι, συναντιλαμβάνεσθαι. 
Διαπαρατριβή in 1 Tim. vi. 5 would violate this rule, if it must mean mis- 
placed diligence or unprofitable disputing. For this word can only signify 
continued (endless) hostilities, collisions ; παραδιατριβή would be required 
to express the former meaning. The majority of the Codd., however, 
[Sin. also] have διαπαρατριβή and this Lchm. has printed. A transposition 
of the prepositions is accordingly assumed (even by Fr. Mr. p. 796). Yet 
διαπαρατριβή continued dissension, is not unsuited to the passage. The 
other compounds beginning with διαπαρα which occur, viz. 1 Kings vi. 4 
διαπαρακύπτεσθαι, and 2 Sam. iii. 80 διαπαρατηρεῖν, would be regular ac- 
cording to their respective import, if no doubt existed regarding the former ; 
see Schleusner, thes. philol. sub voc. The double compound παρακαταθήκη 
and the compound παραθήκη are equivalent in meaning (Lennep ad Phalar. 
ep. Ρ. 198, Lips.; Lob. 312). The latter, however, is better established 
in the N.T. The Codd. exhibit variations of both forms even in Thue. 
2,72 (see the commentators), and in Plutarch. ser. vind. see Wyttenb. 
II. 530. Cf. besides Heinichen, ind. ad Euseb. III. 529. 

Many verbs, compound as well as decompound, are found in Biblical 
Greek which do not occur in the classic language. In particular, verbs 
which the older writers used as simple, appear strengthened with preposi- 
tions which exhibit as it were to the senses the mode of the action (for 
the later language loves, in general, what is graphic and expressive) ; e.g. 
καταλιθάζειν to stone down to death, ἐξορκίζειν to get a declaration on oath 
out of one, ἐξαστράπτειν to flash forth, ἐκγαμίζειν to give away (out of the 
family) in marriage (elocare), διεγείρειν, ἐξανατέλλειν, ἐξομολογεῖν, and many 
others; see my five Progr. de verborum cum praepositt. via geen in 
N. T. usu. Lips. 1834-43, 4to. 

In the same way, and for the same reason, compound and double com- 
pound adverbs (prepositions) were used in later Greek; as, ἐπάνω, κατ- 
ενώπιον, κατέναντι. In Byzantine authors such formations are carried to a 
greater extent than in Biblical Greek; cf. e.g. xarerdvw in Constantin. 
Porphyrogen. 

Note 1. Proper names, particularly such as are compounds, frequently 
appear in the N.T. in those contracted forms which are peculiar to the 
language of the people, and which are in part very bold (Lob. 434, cf. 
Schmid on Horat. epp. 1,7, 55); as, ᾿Απολλώς for ᾿Απολλώνιος, ᾿Αρτεμᾶς for 
’Apreuidwpos Tit. 111. 12, Nupdas for Νυμφόδωρος Col. iv. 15,’ Ζηνᾶς for 


1 Keil in the Philologus II. 468 expressed his conviction that he had found this name 
in an inscription in Béckh. 


§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS. 103 


Ζηνόδωρος Tit. iii. 13, Tappevas for Παρμενίδης Acts vi. 5, Δημᾶς probably 115 
for Anpéas, Δημήτριος or Δήμαρχος Col. iv. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 10, probably 
also Ὀλυμπᾶς for ᾿Ολυμπιόδωρος Rom. xvi. 15, "Exadpas for ᾿Επαφρόδιτος 
Col. i. 7 ; iv. 12, and ἙἭ μᾶς for “Eppddwpos Rom. xvi. 14, Θευδᾶς for Θεύδωρος 

1.6. Θεόδωρος, and Λουκᾶς for Lucanus (in Greek authors cf. Αλεξᾶς for 
᾿Αλέξανδρος Jos. bell. 6, 1, 8, Μηνᾶς for Μηνόδωρος, Πυθᾶς for Πυθόδωρος, 
Merpas Euseb. H. E. 6, 41). Many also in as not circumflexed appear 

to be abbreviated ; as, ᾿Αμπλίας for Ampliatus Rom. xvi. 8, ᾿Αντίπας for 
*Avrizarpos Rev. ii. 13, Κλεόπας for Κλεόπατρος Luke xxiv. 18, perhaps 
Σίλας for Σιλουανός ; see Heumann, Poecile 111.314. Σώπατρος for Swoi- 
matpos Acts xx. 4 (which even some Codd. give) would be likewise a very 
violent contraction, though nearer the beginning. Xwzarpos, however, 
may be an original form. On the other hand, proper names in Aaos, which 
probably not (Mtth. I. 149) the Dorians alone contracted into Aas, occur 

in the N. T. uncontracted: Νικόλαος, ᾿Αρχέλαος. Moreover, how even the 
earlier Greeks contracted names of persons for the sake of euphony, 

K. Keil has shown by examples in his spec. onomatolog. gr. (L. 1840, 8vo.) 

p- 52sqq. The German affords examples of similar abbreviations and 
contractions in great numbers, some very forced, as Klaus from Nikolaus, 
Kathe (Kathi) from Katharina; many of them have become independent 
names which even occur in literature, as Fritz (Friedrich), Heinz (Hein- 
rich), Hans, Max. Cf. Lob. prolegg. pathol. p. 504sqq. In general, 94 
however, on Greek names of persons see Sturz, Progr. de nominib. Graecor., 6th ed. 
also in his Opuse. (Lips. 1825, 8vo.), W. Pape, Worterb. der griech. Eigen: 98 
namen. Brschw. 1842, 8vo. (Hall. L. Z. 1843. No. 106-108), and the Τ᾿ 
Beitriige zur Onomatologie by Keil in Schneidewin, Philologus, vols. 2 
and 3. 

Note 2. Latin words adopted into the Greek of the N. T., — mostly sub- 
stantives denoting Roman judicial institutions, coins, or articles of dress,— 
exhibit nothing peculiar with regard to form. Latin verbs made to assume 
Greek forms make their first appearance later, in the Greek style of the 
Pseudepigrapha, the Byzantines, ete. See Thilo, Acta App: Petri et Pauli, 
Hal. 1837, 4to. I. p. 10 sq. 


99 
ΤΙ od, 


95 
6th ed. 
116 


100 


τὰ ed. ὁ 


DAA, dk ἦν 
BiG Xk odo D A eee 


A. IMPORT AND USE OF THE SEVERAL PARTS OF SPEECH. 


— ea 
CHAPTER I. 
OF THE ARTICLE.! 


517. THE ARTICLE AS A PRONOUN. 


1. The article ὁ, ἡ, τό was originally a demonstrative pronoun, 
and is regularly employed as such in epic poetry,—to which 
belongs the quotation from Aratus in Acts xvii. 28: τοῦ yap γένος 
ἐσμέν ; cf. Soph. Oed. R. 1082 τῆς yap πέφυκα μητρός (Mtth. 737. 
For prose cf. Athen. 2, p. 37). 

In prose on the other hand the article is ordinarily equivalent 
to a demonstrative pronoun only 

a. In the current formulas ὁ μὲν ... ὁ δέ, of μὲν ... οἱ 5é,2 some- 
times in reference to a subject previously mentioned: this... that, 
the one... the other Acts xiv. 4; xvii. 32; xxviii. 24; Heb. vii. 20f.; 
Gal. iv. 23 (Schaef. Dion. 421), sometimes partitively without such 
reference, Eph. iv. 11 ἔδωκεν τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας, 
τούς δὲ, etc. (some ... others). 

b. In the course of narration, in the simple phrase ὁ δέ, οἱ δέ, 
but he, etc. (as opposed to some other subject) ; as, Matt. xiii. 29 
δὲ ἔφη, ii. 9 of δὲ ἀκούσαντες ἐπορεύθησαν, ii. 14; ix. 81; Luke 
1 4. Kluit, vindiciae artic. in N. T, Traj. et Alemar. 1768-1771. P. 1. Tom. I.-III., 
P. II. Tom. I. II. 8vo. (the book itself is written in Dutch), 7. 7’. Middleton, the doctrine 
of the Greek Article applied to the criticism and illustration of the New Test. Lond. 1808, 
8vo.; cf. Schulthess in the theol. Annal. 1808, 8. 56 ff. . Valpy, a short treatise on 
the doctrine of the Greek Article, according to Middleton, etc., briefly and compendi- 
ously explained as applicable to the criticism of the N. T., prefixed to his Greek Tes- 
tament with English notes. Lond. 3rd ed. 1834, 3 Vols. 8vo. Emmerling’s remarks on 
the Article in the N. T. in Keil and Tzschirner’s Analekt. I. II. 147 ff. are unimportant. 


On the other hand, Bengel Matt. xviii. 17 discusses the subject briefly but to the purpose. 
2 On the accentuation see Hm. Vig. p. 700. On the other side, Aviig. p. 83. 





~ λυν:. ee Pe 


§18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS, a. BEFORE NOUNS. 105 


iii. 13; viii. 21; xx.12; Jno.i. 39; ix. 38; Actsi. 6; ix. 40, ete. 117 
(Xen. A. 2, 3,2; Aesch. dial. 3, 15,17; Philostr. Ap. 1, 21, 9; 
Diod. 5. Exc. Vat. p. 26, 29 etc.) 

For of piv... ot0€ are found also of μὲν ... ἄλλοι δέ Ino. vii. 12, οἱ μὲν 96 
3. ἄλλοι δὲ... ἕτεροι δέ Matt. xvi. 14 (Plato, legg. 2, 658 b.; 4.6]. 2, 34; bthed 
Palaeph. 6, 5), τινὲς ... of δέ Acts xvii. 18, cf. Plato, legg. 1, 627 a. and Ast 
on the passage. Similar expressions are still more diversified in Greek 
authors (Mtth. 742). 

Instead of the Article, the Relative also is employed in such antithetical 
statements; as, 1 Cor. xi. 21 ὃς μὲν πεινᾷ, ὃς δὲ μεθύει, Matt. xxi. 35 ὃν μὲν 
ἔδειραν, ὃν δὲ ἀπέκτειναν, etc., Acts xxvii. 44; Rom. ix. 21; Mark xii. 5; 
ef. Polyb. 1, 7,3; 3,76 4; Thuc. 3,66; see Georgi, Hierocr. 1#109 sqq.; 
Hm. Vig. 706. Once ὃς μὲν ... ἄλλος δέ 1 Cor. xii. 8 (Xen. A. 3, 1, 35) 5 
ὃ μὲν (Neut.) ... καὶ ἕτερον Luke viii. 5 ff.; in 1 Cor. xii. 28 an anacoluthon 
__ is easily perceived. See in general Bhdy. 306f. (In Rom. xiv. 2 ὁ δέ is 
not related to ὃς μέν, but ὃ is the Article belonging to ἀσθενῶν.) 


2. In Matt. xxvi. 67; xxviii. 17 of δέ is used of a second party 
without a first’s having been designated by of μέν. The former 
passage ἐνέπτυσαν εἰς τὸ πρόςωπον αὐτοῦ Kal ἐκολάφισαν αὐτόν; οἱ δὲ 
ἐῤῥάπισαν would more regularly run thus: καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐκολάφ. ; 
but as he writes ἐκολάφ. the author has no second distributive 
clause definitely in mind as yet; but when he subjoins οἱ δὲ ἐῤῥ. 
it becomes self-evident that ἐκολάφ. applies to a ‘part only of the 
actors ; ef. Xen. H. 1, 2,14 οἱ aiyydrwro ... ᾧχοντο ἐς Δεκέλειαν, 
οἱ δ᾽ ἐς Μέγαρα, Cyr. 3, 2,12; see Poppo ad. Cyr. p. 292; Bremi, 
Demosth. p. 278. So, in Matt. xxviii., it is first stated in general 
terms οἱ ἕνδεκα μαθηταὶ ... ἰδόντες αὐτὸν προςεκύνησαν ; that this, 
however, is to be understood only of the greater number is clear 
from what follows—oi δὲ ἐδίστασαν. In Luke ix. 19 of δέ refers 
regularly to. the previously mentioned μαθηταί vs. 18, and should 
seem to denote that all gave the answer which follows; but the 
expressions ἄλλοι δὲ... ἄλλοι δέ show that the answer was given 
by only a part of the disciples. Matt. xvi. 14 is more regular: 
οἱ δὲ εἶπον " οἱ μὲν ᾿Ιωάννην ... ἄλλοι Se... ἕτεροι δέ. 


818. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS, ἃ. BEFORE NOUNS. 118 


1. When ὁ, ἡ, τό is employed as strictly an Article before a 
noun, it marks the object as one definitely conceived,! whether in 


1 Cf. Epiphan. haer. 1, 9, 4.— Herm. praef. ad Eurip. Iphig. Aul. p. 15: articulus 
quoniam origine pronomen demonstrativum est, definit infinita idque duobus modis, 
aut designando certo de multis aut quae multa sunt, cunctis in unum colligendis. 


101 


106 § 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS, a. BEFORE NOUNS. 


consequence of its nature, or the context, or some circle of ideas 


ith οἱ, assumed as known; as, Mark i. 32 ὅτε ἔδυ ὁ ἥλιος, Jno. i. 52 ὄψεσθε 


97 
Gth ed. 


τὸν οὐρανὸν avewyora, 1 Cor. xv. 8 ὡςπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὥφθη κἀμοί 
(the only abortion among the apostles), Acts xxvii. 88 ἐκβαλλόμενοι 
Tov σῖτον eis THY θάλασσαν the grain (which was the vessel’s cargo,), 
Luke iv. 20 πτύξας τὸ βιβλίον (which had been handed to him 
vs. 17) ἀποδοὺς τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ (the beadle of the synagogue), Jno. xiii. 
5 βάλλει ὕδωρ εἰς τὸν νυπτῆρα the basin (that stood there, as usual), 
cf. Matt. xxvi. 20 f.; Jno. vi. 3 ἀνῆλθεν εἰς τὸ ὄρος into the mountain 
(situated just there on the farther shore vs. 1), 1 Cor. v. 9 ἔγραψα 
ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ (which Paul had previously written to the Cor.), 
Acts ix. 2 ἠτήσατο ἐπιστολὰς εἰς Δαμασκὸν πρὸς τὰς συνωγωγάς to 
the synagogues (there in Damascus), Rev. xx. 4 ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ 
Χριστοῦ τὰ χίλια ἔτη the thousand years (the known duration of 
the Messiah’s kingdom), Jas. ii. 25 “PaaS ἡ᾽ πόρνη ὑποδεξαμένη 
τοὺς ἀγγέλους the spies (mentioned .in the history of Rahab), Heb. 


ix. 19 λαβὼν τὸ αἷμα τῶν μόσχων καὶ τῶν τρώγων with allusion ἢ 


to Exod. xxiv. 8. So 1 Cor. vii. 3 τῇ γυναικί ὁ ἀνὴρ τὴν ὀφειλὴν 
ἀποδιδότω the (i.e. matrimonial) attention due, vii. 29 ὁ καιρὸς συνε- 
σταλμένος ἐστίν; cf. vs. 26 διὰ τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἀνάγκην. The Article 
thus refers to known facts, arrangements, or opinions, Acts v. 87; 
xxi. 38; Heb. xi. 28; 1 Cor. x.1,10; 2 Thess. ii. 8; Jno. i. 21; 
ii. 14; xviii. 3; Matt. viii. 4,12, or to something previously men- 
tioned, Matt. ii. 7 (1); Luke ix. 16 (13); Actsix. 17, (11); Jno. 
iv. 43 (40) ; Acts xi. 18 (x. 8, 22); Jas. ii. 8 (2); Jno. xii. 12 (1); 
xx. 1 (xix. 41); Heb. v.41); Rev. xv.6 (1). Accordingly ὁ 
ἐρχόμενος is the Messiah, ἡ κρίσις the (last) gudgment, ἡ γραφή the 
holy Scripture, ἡ σωτηρία Christian salvation, ὁ πειράζων the Tempter 
— Satan, ete. So also of geographical designations, ἡ ἔρημος the 
desert, so called by way of eminence, "2725, i.e. according to the 
context, either the Arabian desert (of Mount Sinai) Jno. iii. 14; 


_vi. 831; Acts vii. 30, or the desert.of Judea Matt. iv. 1; xi. 7. 


119 


To be particularly noticed, further, is the use of a Singular with 
the Article to express in the person of a definite individual a 
whole class; as when we say, the soldier must be trained to arms: 
2 Cor. xii. 12 τὰ σημεῖα τοῦ ἀποστόλου, Matt. xii. 35 ὁ ἀγαθὸς 
ἄνθρωπος ... ἐκβάλλει ἀγαθά, xv. 11; xviii. 17; Luke x. 7; Gal. 
iv. 1; Jas. v. 6. Allied to this is the Singular in parables and 
allegories: Jno. x. 116 ποιμὴν ὁ καλὸς τὴν ψυχὴν αὑτοῦ τίθησιν, 
where the Good Shepherd is brought forward as an ideal; Matt. 
xiii. 3 ἐξῆλθεν 6 σπείρων τοῦ σπείρειν (where Luther incorrectly 
has, a sower). See Krii. 86 ἢ 


—— a a ρυ.- 


I ΨΥ 


818. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 107 


Note. According to Kiihnél the Article (cf. the emphatic das in 
German) sometimes includes the force of the pronoun this (cf. Siebelis, 


Pausan. I. 50; Boisson. Babr. p. 207), Matt. i. 25 τὸν υἱόν for τοῦτον τὸν 409 
υἱόν, Ino. vii. 17 γνώσεται περὶ τῆς διδαχῆς, vs. 40 ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου, Acts xxvi. 10 ithel. 


τὴν Tapa τῶν ἀρχιερέων ἐξουσίαν λαβών, Mark xiii. 20; Acts ix. 2; but the 
definite Article is quite sufficient in all such cases. Heumann has gone 
still further in conceding this import of the Article, and is followed by 
Schulthess (n. krit. Journ. I. 285), who, with Kiihnél, quite erroneously 
‘refers to Mtth. § 286, where this use of the Article, which can hardly 
occur in prose (except Ionic), is not discussed. Col. iv. 16 ὅταν ἀναγνωσθῇ 
παρ᾽ ὑμῖν ἡ ἐπιστολή we also say, when the letter is read (not the (this) letter 
— no such underscoring is needed, since the letter in hand could be the only 
one thought of) ; some authorities add αὕτη, but the ancient versions ought 


98 


not to be reckoned in. In 1 Tim. i. 15 even in German the Demonst. θὲ οἱ, 


Pronoun is not required, nor in vi. 18. In 2 Cor. ν. 4 the Art. in ἐν τῷ 
σκήνει is not put δεικτικῶς for τούτῳ, but simply refers back to σκῆνος men- 
tioned in vs. 1. In Col. iii. 8 ἀπόθεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ πάντα is not, all this 
(or that) (intensive), but the whole, viz. what is immediately (a second 
time) adduced. Also in Rom. νυ. 5 ἡ (ἐλπίς) is simply the Article; see 
Fr. Least of all must ὃ κόσμος be taken for otros 6 κόσμος ; it means the 
world as distinguished from heaven, the kingdom of heaven ; not this world 
as opposed to another κόσμος. The same judgment must be passed also 
upon those passages which might be adduced as proofs of this usage in 
classic authors, Diog. Laert. 1, 72 and 86. One cannot possibly compre- 
hend how the apostles could have been induced, in certain passages where 
they thought the demonstrative pronoun, to employ — not that, but — the 
article, which is much weaker in every instance. One’s sense of linguistic 
propriety revolts against such a use of language. Besides, explicitness is 
the very characteristic of the later language in general (and of that of the 
N. T. also). 

By Greek authors, particularly Ionic and Doric (Mtth. 747 ; cf. Ellendt, 
Lexic. Soph. II. 204), and afterwards by the Byzant. (Malal. p. 95, 102), 
the Art. was sometimes used for the Relative. Some have asserted that 
the same use is found in the N. T. in Acts xiii. 9 Σαῦλος 6 καὶ Παῦλος (see 
Schleusner 8. ἢ. v.) ; but incorrectly, for ὃ καὶ II. is here equivalent to 
6 καὶ καλούμενος ἸΤαῦλος (Schaef. L. Bos. p. 213), and the Article retains 
its ordinary import, just as in Σ. ὃ Ταρσεύς. Compare the similar Πῖκος ὃ 
καὶ Ζεύς Malal. ed. Bonn. p. 19 sq.; Act. Thom. p.34. On the other hand, 
compare in Hellenistic writers, Psalt. Sal. xvii. 12 ἐν τοῖς κρίμασι, τὰ ποιεῖ 
ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, if the reading is correct. In Wisd. xi. 15, where ὅν the reading 


of the Cod. Alex. is probably a correction, τὸν is to be regarded as the 
Article. 


2. The use of the Article which has just been discussed is 
common to the Greek with all languages that possess an Article. 


120 


108 § 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 


The following cases on the other hand (cases where in German 
the definite Art. is not used) are to be noticed as peculiar: 
{108 a. Rev. iv. 7 τὸ ζῶον ἔχον τὸ πρόφωπον ὡς ἀνθρώπου (Xen. C. 
Τὰ εἰ, 5, 1, 2 ὁμοίαν ταῖς δούλαις εἶχε τὴν ἐσθῆτα, Theophr. ch. 12 [19] 
τοὺς ὄνυχας μεγάλους ἔχων, Polyaen. 8, 10, 1a.), Acts xxvi. 24 
μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ ἔφη, xiv. 10; 1 Cor. xi. 5 (Aristot. anim. 2,8 and 
10; Lucian. catapl. 11; Ὁ, 5.1, 70, 83; Pol. 15, 29,11; Philostr, 
Ap. 4, 44). We say, he had eyes like, etc. ; he spoke with a loud 
woice, etc. The Greek here by the Article designates what belongs 
to the individual in a definite form, as is more obvious from Heb. 
Vii. 24 ἀπαράβατον ἔχει τὴν ἱερωσύνην he hath the priesthood as un- 
changeable (predicate), Mark viii. 17; 1 Pet. ii. 12; iv. 8; “Eph. 
i. 18 and from Matt. ili. 4 εἶχε τὸ ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τριχῶν καμή- 
λου, Rev. ii. 18 (differing from the preceding examples by the 
addition of the pronoun). From Greek authors, for the former 
cf. Thuc. 1,10 and 23; Plato, Phaedr. 242 Ὁ. ; Lucian. dial. deor. 
99 8,1; fugit. 10; eun.11; D.S. 1,52; 2,19; 8,34; Ael. anim. 
θὲ εἰ. 13,15; Pol. 8, 4, 1 ; 8, 10, 1 ; see Lob. Phryn. 265; Krii. Dion. 
H. 126. (The Art. is sometimes omitted e.g. in 2 Pet. ii. 14; ef. 
Aristot. anim. 2, 8 and 10 with 2, 11.) 
b. 1 Cor. iv. 5 τότε ὁ ἔπαινος γενήσεται ἑκάστῳ the praise which 
is due him, Rom. xi. 36 αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, xvi. 27 ; Eph. 
«νι. tii, 21; Gal. i. 5; 1 Pet. iv. 11; Rev. v.13; Rev. iv. 11 ἄξιος εἶ 
λαβεῖν τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμήν, Jas. ii. 14 τέ τὸ ὄφελος ἐὰν πίστιν 
λέγῃ τις ἔχειν the advantage to be expected, 1 Cor. xv. 82; 1 Cor. 
ix. 18 ris μοί ἐστιν ὁ μισθός (Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 212). In 
general the Art. here denotes that which is due, requisite, etc., 
Krii. 84. Accordingly it is often used where we employ a Pos- 
sessive Pronoun; as, Rom. iv. 4 τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ ὁ μισθὸς οὐ χογίζεται 
his reward, ix. 22; Luke xviii. 15. Cf. Fritzsche, Aristot. Amic. 
pp. 46, 99. 
121 On the other hand, no example occurs of the use of the Art. discussed 
by Mtth. 714 and Rost 438 in appellations (Schaef. Demosth. IV. 365) ; 
“for in Rev. vi. 8 ὄνομα αὐτῷ ὁ θάνατος, viii. 11 τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ἀστέρος λέγεται 
ὃ ἄψινθος, xix. 18 κέκληται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ 6 λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, a name is men- 
tioned in every case which belongs individually and exclusively to the object. 
3. Adjectives and participles used substantively are, like sub- 
stantives, rendered definite by the Article; as, 1 Cor. i. 27 οἱ σοφοί, 
Eph. vi. 16 βέλη τοῦ πονηροῦ, Gal. i. 23 ὁ διώκων ὑμᾶς, Tit. iii. 8 
οἱ πεπιστευκότες τῷ θεῷ, 1 Cor. ix. 13 οἱ τὰ ἱερὰ ἐργαζόμενοι, Matt. 


x. 20; 2 Cor. ii. 2; x. 16; 1 Cor. xiv. 16; Heb. xii. 27. 


ik 


818. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a, BEFORE NOUNS. 109 


- But the place of the noun may be occupied also by an indeclina- 

ble part of speech, as an Inf. or an Adyerb, 2 Cor. i. 17, or by a 
phrase, Rom. iv. 14 of ἐκ νόμου, Heb. xiii. 24 οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας 
(Ὁ. 8. 1, 83), Acts xiii. 13 of περὶ Παῦλον, Phil. i. 27 τὰ περὶ 
ὑμῶν etc. 1 Cor. xiii. 10 (Krii. 92) ; and indeed (after τό) by a 
whole proposition, Acts xxii. 80 γνῶναι τὸ τί κατηγορεῖται (iv. 21; 

1 Thess. iv. 1; Luke xxii. 2, 23, 37), Mark | ix. 23 εἶπεν αὐτῷ τό" --.-- 
εἰ δύνῃ ; Gal. ν. 14 ὁ πᾶς νόμος ἐν Evi λόγῳ πεπλήρωται, ἐν τῷ" 
ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου, Rom. viii. 26; xiii. 9; Luke i. 62; 
'[Matt. xix. 18]. (Sentences thus made prominent are usually 104 
quotations or interrogations.) Cf. Plato, Gorg. 461 6. and Phaed. ™# 
62b.; rep. 1, 352d.; Demosth. Con. 128 ο.; Lucian. Alex. 20; 
Mtth. 730 f.; Stallb. Plat. Euthyph. p. 55, and Men. 25. Even 

an Adverb or a Genitive connected with the Art. (particularly the 
Neut.) becomes a virtual Substantive (Ellendt, Arrian. Al. 1. 84; 
Weber, Demosth. p. 237) ; as, Luke xvi. 26 of ἐκεῖθεν, Jno. viii. 23 

τὰ κάτω, τὰ ἄνω, JNO. Xxi. 2 of τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου, Luke xx. 25 τὰ 
Καίσαρος, Jas. iv. 14 τὸ τῆς αὔριον, 2 Pet. ii. 22 τὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς 
παροιμίας, 1 Cor. vii. 33 τὰ τοῦ κόσμου, 2 Pet. i. 3; 2 Cor. x. 16; 
Phil. i. 5; Jno. xviii. 6, ete. Krii. 28, 93. So too, in German we 
can say briefly, das droben, das des morgenden Tags (what will 
happen to-morrow ), die des Zebeddus (those belonging to him, e.g. 
sons), see ὃ 30,3. Often, however, we must use a periphrasis ; 100 
was dem Kaiser gebihrt ; etc. As a mere periphrasis, like τὸ τῆς Sth οὐ, 
δόξης for ἡ δόξα 1 Pet. iv. 14, the neut. Art. is not used in the N.T. 
(Huther in loc. [1st ed.] to the contrary.) 


The Neut. τό is sometimes put before nouns to designate them in the 
abstract, as sounds or combinations of sound: Gal. iv. 25 τὸ yap "Ayap etc., 
the (word) Hagar. 

In many connections a participle used substantively occurs with an article 
(which is not admissible in German) as a definite predicate to an indefinite 
subject, Gal. i. 7 τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς, Col. ii. 8 μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται 
ὃ συλαγαγῶν, also Jno. v. 32; Luke xviii. 9; or as a definite subject where, 
logically, an indefinite was to be expected, Rom. iii. 11 οὐκ ἔστιν ὃ συνιῶν 
(Jno. v. 45), 2 Cor. xi. 4 εἰ 6 ἐρχόμενος ἄλλον Ἰησοῦν κηρύσσει. But in 
Greek in all such cases the quality is conceived of as a definite concrete, 122 
only the person, who is this concrete in action, remains indefinite. The 
ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς really exist, only as individuals they are not more closely 
designated." Jf he that cometh (the preacher who will not fail to appear 


1 Cf. in Latin sunt qui eristimant as distinguished from sunt qui existiment ; 566. Zumpt, 
5. 480. 


110 818. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS ἃ. BEFORE NOUNS. 


among you, — person and name are of no consequence), etc.; he that wns 
derstandeth is not (to be found), etc. So Lucian. abdic. 3 ἦσαν τινὲς of 
μανίας ἀρχὴν τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι νομίζοντες, Lysias bon. Aristoph. 57 εἰσί τινες οἱ 
προςαναλίσκοντες, Dio Chr. 38, 482 ἤδη τινές εἰσιν οἱ καὶ τοῦτο δεδοικότες, and 
the frequent εἰσὶν οἱ λέγοντες Mtth. 713, also Xen. A. 2, 4, 5 6 ἡγησάμενος 
οὐδεὶς ἔσται, Thuc. 3. 83 οὐκ ἦν 6 διαλύσων, Porphyr. abst. 4, 18 οὐδείς ἐστιν 
6 κολάσων, (Sept. Gen. xl. 8; xli.8; Deut. xxii. 27; 1 Sam. xiy. 39). See 
Bhdy. 318 ἢ; Hm. Soph. Oed. R. 107; Doederl. Soph. Oed. Col. p. 296 ; 
Dissen, Demosth. cor. p. 238. Acts ii. 47 6 κύριος προςετίθει τούς σωζομένους 


105 τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ means, he added to the church those that were being saved (in 


Τὰ ed. 


consequence of their believing), he increased the church by those in whom 
preaching took effect; cf. Krii. 89. 

Between πολλοί and οἱ πολλοί put substantively (the latter is very rare 
in the N. T.) we find the usual distinction. Οἱ πολλοί means the (known) 
many 2 Cor. ii. 17 contrasted with unity, Rom. xii. 5 οἱ πολλοὶ & capa 
ἐσμεν (1 Cor. x. 17), or opposed to a definite individual Rom. v. 15, 19, or, 
without such contrast, the generality, the (great) mass, the vulgus (all but 
a few) Matt. xxiv. 12; cf. Schaef. Melet. p. 3. 65. 


4. Nouns rendered more distinctly definite by οὗτος or ἐκεῖνος as 
adjectives,! always have the Article, inasmuch as they distinguish 
some individual from the mass (not so in German — nor in Eng- 
lish) : ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος Luke ii. 25, οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος xiv. 80, τὸν 
ἀγρὸν ἐκεῖνον Matt. xiii. 44, ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ Matt. vii. 22, ὁ κακὸς 
δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος Matt. xxiv. 48. Also in Luke vii. 44 the accredited 
reading is βλέπεις ταύτην τὴν γυναῖκα, though ταύτην yuvatca,—as 
the woman was present, — according to Wolf in Dem. Lept. p. 268 ; 


101 Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. IT. 243 ; Krii. 108, would be unexceptionable. 
the. Names of persons also with οὗτος usually have the Article; as, 


123 


Heb. vii. 1; Acts i. 11; ii. 82; xix. 26 (vii. 40). 

A noun with πᾶς may either have the Art. or not; πᾶσα πόλις 
means every city, πᾶσα ἡ πόλις the whole city Matt. viii. 34 (Rom. 
111.19 ἵνα πᾶν στόμα φραγῇ Kal ὑπόδικος γένηται πᾶς ὁ κόσμος) ; 
πᾶσαι yeveai all generations, whatever their number, πᾶσαι ai 
yeveai Matt. i. 47 all the generations, known as a definite plural 
either from the context or some other source. Of. Sing. Matt. iii. 
10; vi. 29; xiii. 47; Jno.ii.10; Luke vii. 29; Mark v.33; Phil. 
i.8; Plur. Matt. ii. 4; iv. 24; Luke xiii. 27; Acts xxii. 15; Gal. 
vi. 6; 2 Pet. iii. 16 (where there is not much authority for the 
Art.). 

1 It is otherwise when these pronouns are predicates; as, Rom. ix. 8 ταῦτα τέκνα τοῦ 


θεοῦ, Luke i. 86 οὗτος why ἕκτος ἐστίν, Jno. iv. 18 τοῦτο ἀληθὲς εἴρηκας, ii. 11, ete. Cf. 
Fr. Mt. 663; Schaef. Plut. IV. 377. 


ee ee ee ee ΠΝ 


§ 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 111 


The following are not exceptions :! Matt. ii. 3 πᾶσα ‘Iepocddupa 
all Jerusalem (for ‘JepocdAvya is a proper name, see paragraph 5), 
Acts ii. 36 πᾶς οἶκος ᾿Ισραήλ the whole house of Israel (for this too 
is treated as a proper name 1 Sam. vii. 2f.; Neh. iv. 16; Judith 
viii. 6). In Eph. iii. 15 πᾶσα πατριά obviously means every race, 
Col. iv. 12 ἐν παντὶ θελήματι τοῦ θεοῦ in every will of God Cin 
everything which God wills), 1 Pet.i.15 ἐν πάσῃ PRS in 
omni vitae modo. 

Still less are the following instances to be considered as excep- 
tional: Jas. i. 2 πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε, Eph. i. 8 ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ 
(2 Cor. xii. 12; Acts xxiii. 1) all (full) joy, in all (full) wisdom 106 
—for they are abstracts denoting a whole, where every wisdom Me. 
and all wisdom substantially coincide, Krii. 106. Only in Eph. ii. 
21 there is preponderating authority for πᾶσα oixodou7, though, 
since the church of Christ as a whole is spoken of, the whole build- 
ing is the proper translation; AC [Sin**] however, actually give 
the Art., which owing to the Itacism might easily have fallen out. 


Πᾶς joined to a participle not equivalent to a noun demands particular 
notice : πᾶς ὀργιζόμενος means every one angry (when, if, while he is angry), 
cf. 1 Cor. xi. 4, but πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος Matt. v. 22 every angry person i.g. 
πᾶς ὅςτις ὀργίζεται; cf. Luke vi. 47; xi. 10; Jno. iii, 20; xv. 2; 1 Cor. 

ix. 25; 1 Thess. i. 7, etc.; Krii. 89. This distinction must guide our 
judgment respecting the double reading Luke xi. 4 παντὶ ὀφείλοντι and 
παντὶ τῷ ὀφείλοντι, see Mey. 

Τοιοῦτος is joined to a noun without an Art. when such, any such, of this 
sort, is meant; as, Matt. ix. 8 ἐξουσία τοιαύτη, Mark iv.33 τοιαῦται παραβολαί, 
Acts xvi. 24 παραγγελία τοιαύτη, 2 Cor. iii. 12. When, on the other hand, 

a particular object is pointed out as such a or of such a sort, the noun natu- 
rally takes the Art.; as, Mark ix. 37 ἕν τῶν τοιούτων παιδίων (with reference 
to παιδίον in vs. 36 that represents childhood), Jno. iv. 23; 2 Cor. xii. 3, cf. 102 
vs. 2; 2 Cor. xi. 13; Schaef. Demos. IIT. 136 ; Schneider, Plat. civ. 11. p. 1. 6th ed. 

Ἕκαστος, which is seldom employed adjectively in the N. T., is always 124 
joined to a substantive without an Art., Orelli, Isocr. Antid. p. 255, (9), 
Luke vi. 44 ἕκαστον δένδρον, Ino. xix. 23 ἑκάστῳ στρατιώτῃ, Heb. iii. 13 
καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν, Bornem. Xen. An. p. 69. In Greek authors the Art. 
often accompanies nouns with ἕκαστος ; Stallb. Plat. Phileb. p. 93 and 
Hipp. Maj. 164. 


1 Only nouns of the class mentioned in § 19, 1. can, even when joined to πᾶς (the. 
whole), dispense with the Article, e.g. πᾶσα γῆ ; ef. Thuc. ed. Poppo, III. 11. p. 224. 
In the N. T. this word always has the Article; as, Matt. xxvii. 45 ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, 
Rom. x. 18, ete. Finally, the passages Thiersch, de Pentat. Alex. p. 121, has quoted to 
prove the omission of the Art. with πᾶς (the whole) in the Sept., are for the most part 
quite irrelevant. 


’ 
112 § 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 


Τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα means the same Spirit; but αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα the Spirit 
Himself, Krii. 107. Compare for the former Rom. ix. 21; Phil. i. 30; 
Luke vi. 38; xxiii.40; 2 Cor.iv. 13; for the latter Rom. viii. 26; 1 Cor. 
xv. 28; 2 Cor. xi. 14; Jno. xvi. 27. In both cases the Art. is never 
omitted in the N. T. with appellatives, — (Luke xx. 42; xxiv. 15 therefore 
are no exceptions; Bornem. Schol. p. 158.)'— as it is sometimes in Greek 
authors, that is to say in the former case, especially in epic poetry, Hm. 
Opuse. I. 332 sqq., and in later prose (index to Agath. ed. Bonn. p. 411) ; 
in the latter case, even in the better prose authors, Krii. Dion. H. 444 sq. ; 
Bornem. Xen. An. p. 61; Poppo, index ad Cyr. sub verb. 


5. Proper names, as they already denote a definite individual, 
do not require the Art., nevertheless, as the established sign of 
definiteness, it is often joined to them. First, in regard to geo- 
graphical names : 

a. The names of countries (and rivers) more frequently take 
the Art. than those of cities (cf. die Schweiz, die Lausitz, die 
Lombardei, das Elsass, das T'yrol, etc.). 

10] The following never or very seldom occur without the Art.: 

Ith el. "Tovdaia, ᾿Αχαΐα, ᾿Ιορδάνης, ᾿Ιταλία, Ταλιλαία, Mvoia, ’Acia (Acts 
ii. 9, yet see vi. 9; 1 Pet. i. 1), Σαμάρεια (Luke xvii. 11), Συρία 
(Acts xxi. 3), Κρήτη (yet Tit. 1. δ). Only «Αἴγυπτος always is 
used without the Art., and with Μακεδονία usage varies. 

b. Names of cities most rarely have the Art. when connected 
with a preposition (Locella, Xen. Ephes. pp. 223, 242), particularly 
with ἐν, eis, or ἐκ; ef. the words δαμασκός, ‘Iepovcarnp, ‘Iepoco- 
λυμα, Τάρσος, "Ἔφεσος, ᾿Αντιόχεια, Καπερναούμ in the concordance. 
Only Καισάρεια, Ῥώμη and Tpwds vary strangely. 

c. Sometimes it is to be observed that a geographical name, 
when it occurs for the first time in the narration, has not the Arti- 
cle, but takes it on being repeated; as, Acts xvii. 15 ἕως ᾿4θηνῶν 
first time, then vs. 16, xviii. 1, with the Art.; Acts xvii. 10 εἰς 
Βέροιαν, then vs. 18 ἐν τῇ B.; Acts xvi. 9 διαβὰς εἰς Μακεδονίαν, then 

125 six times with the Art. (only in xx. 3 without it); Acts xx. 15 
ἤλθομεν εἰς Μίλητον, vs. 17 ἀπὸ τῆς Μιλήτου. 

Ἱερουσαλήμ has the Art. only when accompanied with an adjective ; 

~ Rev. iii. 12; Gal. iv. 25f; besides in Acts v. 28 in the Ace. (on the 
contrary, Luke xxiv. 18; Acts i. 19, etc.). Ἱεροσόλυμα occurs in the 
oblique cases with the Art. only in Jno. (v. 2; %. 22 ; xi. 18). 


103 6. The use of the Art. with names of persons (Bhdy. 317 ; Mdv. 
shel. 17) can hardly be reduced to rule. A comparison of separate 


1 In Matt. xii. 50 it is quite unnecessary with /’r. to take αὐτός for 6 αὐτός. 


a ee i ee 


eh ee 
~~ ~ ν--“-» — 


. 


§ 18, ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 113 


passages will easily convince one of the capricious irregularity of 
writers,! and that he cannot go far with the distinction (Hm. praef. 
ad Iphig. Aul. p. 16; Fr. Mt. p. 797; Weber, Demosth. p. 414) 
that a proper name is first introduced without the Art. but takes 
it when repeated (cf. Matt. xxvii. 24,58 with 62; Mark xy. 1,14, 
15 with 43; Luke xxiii. 1 ff. with 6 and 13; Jno. xviii. 2 with 5; 
Acts vi. 5 with 8 f.; viii. 1 with 3 and ix. 8; Acts viii. 5 with 6, 
12);? nor with that other (Thilo, Apocr. I. 163 sq.), ‘ proper 
names when in the Nominative usually did not take the Art., but 
frequently had it when in the oblique cases.’ Hence the authority 
of the best MSS. must decide mainly whether the Art. shall stand 
or not. Proper names which are rendered definite by subjoined 
names of kindred or of office, usually (even in the classics Ellendt, 108 
Arrian. Al. I. 154, yet see Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 417 sq. ; Diod. S. 1 αἱ, 
Exc. Vat. p. 87) dispense with the Art. (since they first become 
definite by means of the predicate) : Gal. i. 19 ’IdxwBov τὸν ἀδελφὸν 
τοῦ κυρίου, Matt. x. 4 ᾿Ιούδας ὁ ᾿Ισκαριώτης, ii. 1,33; iv.21; xiv.1; 
Mark x. 47; xvi.1; Jno. xviii. 2; 1 Thess. iii. 2; Rom. xvi. 8 ff. ; 
Acts 1.13; xii.1; xviii.8,17. Thus Pausan. e.g. 2,1,1; 3,9,1; 
T, 18,6; Aeschin. Tim. 179c.; Diog. L. 4, 832; 7, 10, 13; 8, 58, 
63; Demosth. Theoer. 511 c. and Apat. 581 Ὁ. ; Phorm. 605 b., ete. ; 
Conon. 728 b.; Xen. Cyr. 1, 3,8; 2,1,5; Diod. S. Exc. Vat. p. 
20. 22. 39. 41. 42. 51. 69. 95 ete. On the other hand, with inde- 126 
clinable names of persons where the case is not at once apparent 
from a preposition, appended title, etc. (as in Mark xi. 10; Luke 
1.32; Jno. iv.5; Acts ii. 29; vii.14; xiii. 22; Rom. iv.1; Heb. 
iv. 7) perspicuity seems to require the Art.: Matt.i.18; xxii. 42; 
Mark xv. 45; Luke ii. 16; Acts vii. 8; Rom. ix.13; xi. 25; Gal. 


1JIn German, as is well known, the use of the Article before names of persons is 
provincial. Der Lehmann, common in Southern Germany, would sound strange in 
Northern Germany. 

2 Even a person who is mentioned for the first time may take the Article when one 
well known to the reader, or otherwise sufficiently particularized. 

® Compare in particular the want of uniformity in the use of the Article with Παῦλος 
and Πέτρος in the Acts. Πιλάτος in Jno. has always the Article; but in the Acts, 
never ; in Matt. and Mark we find with few exceptions 6 Πιλάτος. Tiros has never 
the Article. 

* That in the addresses of letters the names of persons are without the Article may be 
seen from the collections of Greek letters, from Diog. L. (e.g. 3, 22; 8, 49, 80; 9, 13) 
from Plutarch. Apophth. lac p. 191, from Lucian. parasit. 2, ete. Cf.2Jno.1. The 
address in 1 Pet. i. 1 Πέτρος ... ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις, and also Rev. i. 4, are probably 
to be referred to this rule. Even characterizing predicates dispense with the Article in 
addresses, Diog. L. 7, 7 and 8. 

15 


114 § 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 


iii. 8; Heb. xi. 17, ete. (Hence Paul in Rom. x. 191 would un- 
doubtedly have written μὴ τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ οὐκ ἔγνω ; had he regarded 
104 ᾿Ισραήλ as the object; ef. 1 Cor. x. 18; Luke xxiv. 21). In the 
δὰ eh Senealogies Matt. i. and Luke iii. this is observed throughout, but 
also where the names are declinable. With regard to proper 
names, too, the Codd. often vary. 


It may be remarked here that the proper name ᾿Ἰούδα, where it is to be 
taken as the name of a country, never runs in the Sept. ἡ Ἰούδα, τῆς Ἰούδας, 
etc., but always 4 γῆ Ἰούδα (1 Kings xii. 32; 2 Kings xxiv. 2), or the 
inflected ἡ ᾿Ιουδαία is used instead (2 Chr. xvii. 19). Hence in Matt. ii. 6 
the conjecture τῆς Ἰούδα is even philologically quite improbable. 


7. A Substantive with an Article may be the predicate as well 
as the subject of a proposition, since even the predicate may be 
conceived of as a definite individual ; (though from the nature of 
the case the substantive which ‘has the Art. will more frequently 
be the subject). In the N.T. the predicate has the Art. much 
more frequently than is usually thought, Krii. 91: Mark vi. 3 ody 
οὗτός ἐστιν 6 τέκτων is not this the (known) carpenter ? vii. 15 
ἐκεῖνά ἐστι τὰ κοινοῦντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον those are the things that 
defile etc. xii. T οὗτός ἐστιν 6 κληρονόμος, xiii. 11 οὐ γάρ ἐστε ὑμεῖς 

109 οἱ λαλοῦντες, Matt. xxvi. 20, 28 τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου, τοῦτό 
Tthel. ἐστι τὸ αἷμά μου, Jno. iv. 42 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου, 1 
Cor. x. 4 ἡ δὲ πέτρα ἣν ὁ Χριστός, xi. 3 παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ 
ὁ Χριστός ἐστι, xv. 56 ἡ δύναμις τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ νόμος, 2 Cor. 
iii. 17 ὁ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν, 1 Jno. ill. 4 ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν 
ἡ ἀνομία, Phil. ii. 18 ὁ θεός ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ; cf. also Matt. v. 13; 
vi. 22; xvi. 16: Mark viii. 29; ἰχ. 1; χν. 2; Jno. 1, 4, 8, 50; 
iii. 10; iv. 29;2 v. 35, 89; vi. 14, 50, 51, 63; ix. 8,19, 20; x.7; 
xi. 25; xiv. 21; Actsiv.11; vii. 32; viii. 10; ix. 21; xxi. 28, 38; 
Phil. iii. 3,19; Eph. i. 23; ii. 14; 1 Cor. xi.8; 2 Cor. iii. 2; 1 Jno. 
iv.15; v.6; Jude 19; Rev. i. 17; iii. 17; iv..5; xvii. 18 ; xviii. 
+23; xix. 10; xx. 14. In the following passages the Codd. vary 
more or less: Rev. v. 6,8; Actsiii. 25; 1 Jno. ii. 22; 1 Cor. xv. 28; 
Jno.i. 21. In one instance, one of two nouns in the predicate has 
not, and the other has, the Art.: Jno. viii. 44 ὅτε ψεύστης ἐστὶ 
127 καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ (ψεύδους) he is a liar and the father of it (false- 
hood). In Greek authors likewise the Article often occurs before 


1 Fy! ad 1. has quoted passages not to the purpose, and for Gal. vi. 6 he must have 
meant vi. 16. 
2 Probably also Jno. iv. 37 ; see Meyer. 





4 


$18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 115 


the predicate; οἵ. Xen. M. 8, 10,1; Plato, Phaedr. 64 ¢.; Gorg. 
483b.; Lucian. dial. m. 17,1; see Schaef. Demosth. III. 280; 
IV. 35; Mtth. 706f. [A copious collection of examples (yet 
without any real advance as respects the theory) is contained in 


Dornseiffen, de articulo ap. Graec. ejusque usu in praedicato. 
Amstel. 1856. 8vo.] 


Hence it follows that the oft-repeated rule: ‘the subject of a proposition 
may be known from its having the Art.’ is incorrect, as Glassius and 
Rambach (Instit. herm. p. 446) long ago perceived. Cf. besides, Jen. Lit. 
Z. 1834, No. 207. 


8. In the language of living intercourse it is utterly impossible 
that the Article should be omitted where it is decidedly necessary 
(οἵ, however, § 19), or employed where it is not demanded. Ὅρος 
can never denote THE mountain, nor τὸ ὄρος A mountain (Κα ἀπ] 
on Matt. v.1; Jno. xix. 32 and iii. 10). The N.T. passages — 
and they were formerly very numerous — in which ὁ, ἡ, τό has been 
taken for the indefinite Article? (as is pretended after the manner 
of the Hebrew Art. Gesen. Lg. 655) may be easily disposed of by 
the attentive student. 1 Thess. iv. 6 πλεονεκτεῖν ἐν τῷ πράγματι 
means to overreach in business (cf. im Handel u. Wandel), Jno. 
li. 25 ἐγίνωσκεν τί ἣν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ in the man with whom he 
(at thé time) had to do, (in every man), Krii. 84; cf. Diog. L. 6, 
64 πρὸς τὸν συνιστάντα τὸν παῖδα Kal λέγοντα ὡς εὐφυέστατός éoTL.. 
εἶπε, etc. to the person (to every one) recommending the boy, etc., 
Jno. iii. 10 σὺ εἶ ὁ διδάσκαλος τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ Nicodemus is regarded 
as the teacher of Israel κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, as he in whom all erudition is 
concentred, so that the contrast καὶ ταῦτα οὐ γινώσκεις may be 
made the more palpable (cf. Plato, Crit. 51a. καὶ σὺ φήσεις ταῦτα 


᾿ ποιῶν δίκαια πράττειν ὁ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἐπιμελόμενος Stallb. 


Plat. Kuth. p.12; Valcken. Eur. Phoen. p. 552; Krii. 87). In Heb. 
v. 11 ὁ λόγος is the (our) discourse, the exposition to be presented 
by us; cf. Plato, Phaedr. 270 a. 


On the other hand, the Article may sometimes, with equal 
(objective) correctness,’ be either employed or omitted (Firtsch ad 


1 Sturz, Lexic. Xenoph. III. 232, quotes passages even from Xenoph. where the Article 
is alleged to be put for τὶς. Here applies what Schafer ad Plutarch. somewhere says : 
tanta non fuit vis barbarae linguae, ut graecae ipsa fundamenta convellere posset. 

2 This thoughtless rule is not vindicated by reference to such expositors as have 
attributed to the Art. in certain passages a false emphasis (Glass. 138 sqq.) or have 
pressed it unduly. The adjustment between the old view and the new, which Buhmer 
(Introd. in Epist. ad Coloss. p. 291) thinks he has discovered, is unique. 

* Thus it is easy to explain why one language even regularly employs the Article in 


105 
Gth ed. 


- 110 


Tth ed. 


128 


116 § 18, ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 


Lys. p. 49 sq.) ; as, Jas. ii. 26 τὸ σῶμα χωρὶς πνεύματος νεκρόν the 
body without spirit (χωρὶς τοῦ πνεύματος would be without the 
spirit — requisite for the individual body). In Luke xii. 54 good 
Codd. have ὅταν ἴδητε νεφέλην ἀνατέλλουσαν ἀπὸ δυσμῶν, whereas 
the text. rec. has τὴν νεφέλην. Both readings are admissible. 
With the Article the words mean, when you see the cloud (which 
appears in the sky) rising from the west, —if the direction of the 
moving cloud is from the west. In Col. i. 16 ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη 
τὰ πάντα signifies the (existing) all, the sum of things, all 
things collectively (das All) ; πάντα would mean, everything that 
exists, cf. Col. iii. 8 where the two are united. The meaning is but 
slightly altered by the Article ; yet there is a difference between 
the two conceptions. In Matt. xxvi. 26 we have λαβὼν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς 
τὸν ἄρτον (which lay before him); but in Mark xiv. 22; Luke 
xxii. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 23 (according to the best Codd.) ἄρτον bread, 
or a loaf. Cf. besides, Matt. xii. 1 with Mark ii. 23 and Luke vi. 1; 
Matt xix. 3 with Mark x. 2; Luke ix. 28 with Mark ix. 2. We 


106 find the same alternate omission and use of the Article in parallel 


6th ed. 


clauses: Luke xviii. 2 τὸν θεὸν μὴ φοβούμενοι καὶ ἄγβρωπον μὴ 
ἐντρεπόμενοι ; ; vs. 27 τὰ ἀδύνατα παρὰ ἀνθρώποις δυνατά ἐστι παρὰ 
τῷ θεῷ; xvii. 84 ἔσονται δύο ἐπὶ κλίνης μιᾶς - els! παραληφθήσεται, 
καὶ ὁ ἕτερος ἀφεθήσεται (one... the other; cf., however, Matt. vi. 
24; xxiv. 40f.) ; 1 Jno. iii. 18 ἀγαπῶμεν yaa μηδὲ TH γλώσσῃ 
(according to the best Codd., cf. Soph. Oed. Col. 786 λόγῳ μὲν 
ἐσθλά, τοῖσι δ᾽ ἔργοισιν κακά) ; 2 Tim. i. 10; 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15; 
Rom. ii. 29; iii. 27,30; Heb. ix.4; xi. 88; Jude 16 and 19; Jno. 
xii. 5,6; Jas. ii. 17, 20, 26; Rev. xx.1. See Porson, Eurip. Phoen. 
p- 42, ed. Lips.; Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 58 and his Lex. Soph. II. 
247; ef. Plat. rep. 1. 882 ο. andd.; Xen. A.3,4,7; Galen. temper. 
1,4; Diog. L. 6,6; Lucian. Eunuch. 6; Porphyr. abstin. 1, 14. 
(The antithesis ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς is nowhere fully es- 


111 tablished Matt. xxviii. 18 ; 1 Cor. viii. 5; in both phrases the Art. 
ith el. ig wanting without variant in Eph. iii. 15.) 


But the necessity of the use and of the omission of the Article is obvious 
in Luke ix. 13 οὐκ εἰσὶν ἡμῖν πλεῖον ἢ πέντε ἄρτοι καὶ ἰχθύες δύο, vs. 16 


certain cases (οὗτος 5 ἄνθρωπος, τοὺς φίλους ποιεῖσθαι) in which another does not (this 
man, to believe in gods). Cf. Sintenis, Plut. Themist. p. 190: Multa, quae nos indefinite 
eogitata pronuntiamus, definite proferre soliti sunt Graeci, ejus, de quo sermo esset, 
notitiam animo informatam praesumentes. Such remarks Kiihn. misuses, ad Mt. p. 123. 

1 This gives support to my exposition of Gal. iii. 20, to which it has always been 
objected that I have taken εἷς for ὁ εἷς. 


PS a ὙΠΤΠῊΗῸΌ 








γ΄ - 


νυν ἘΞ 
818, ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 117 

λαβὼν τοὺς πέντε ἄρτους καὶ τοὺς δύο ἰχθύας : Rom. ν. 7 μόλις ὑπὲρ 

δικαίου τις ἀποθανεῖται, ὑπὲρ yap τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ τάχα τις καὶ τολμᾷ ἀποθανεῖν 

for a righteous (upright, blameless) man ... for the good man (he, namely, 

who has proved himself such to him, his benefactor), etc. Riickert has 

unquestionably misunderstood the passage. - In Col. iii. 5 we find four nouns 

in apposition without the Article, and then a fifth, πλεονεξία, marked by 129 

the Article, as denoting a sin well-known and especially to be avoided,’ 

one which the apostle further characterizes straightway,— for in ἥτις ete. 

I cannot find a reference to all the preceding nouns. In 2 Cor. xi. 18 

Paul no doubt designedly wrote καυχῶνται κατὰ τὴν σάρκα, different from 

κατὰ σάρκα (as an adverbial expression), though all recent critics regard 

both as equivalent. See besides Jno. xviii. 20; Rev. iii, 17, and in con- τὸ 

nection with an apposition, Rom. viii. 23 υἱοθεσίαν ἀπεκδεχόμενοι, τὴν ἀπω- 

λύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος; waiting for adoption (that is) the redemption of the 

body. 


9. The Indefinite Article, (which, when necessary, was denoted 
by tis), is expressed [disputed by Meyer on Matt. viii. 19] in cer- 
tain instances by the (weakened) numeral e/s,— as was especially 
the case in the later writers;? as, Matt. viii. 19 προςελθὼν εἷς ) 


γραμματεύς, etc., Rey, viii, 13 ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἀετοῦ. 

But & in Jno. vi. 9 is probably not genuine (cf. Matt. ix. 18), 
and μίαν συκῆν in Matt. xxi. 19 means perhaps one (solitary) fig- 
tree. Eis τῶν παρεστηκότων in Mark xiv. 47 resembles the Latin 
unus adstantium ; cf. Matt. xviii. 28; Mark xiii. 1; Luke xv. 26 
(Herod. 7, 5,10; Plutarch. Arat. 5 and Cleom. 7; Aeschin. dial. 107 
2,2;% Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 249). In Jas. iv. 13 ἐνιαυτὸν ἕνα the Sh 
numeral retains its signification ; and still more in 2 Cor. xi. 2; 
Matt. xviii. 14; Jno. vii. 21. See, in general, Boisson. Eunap. 
345; Ast, Plat. legg. 219; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 398; Schaef. 
Long. 399.4 In Matt. xviii. 24 εἷς ὀφειλέτης μυρίων ταλάντων, there 112 
, Tth ed, 

1 Weber, Dem: p. 327. Another case, in which only the last of several connected 
nouns has, for emphasis’ sake, the Article, is discussed by Jacobitz, Lucian. pisc. p. 209, 
ed. min. 

2 So also sometimes the Heb. 198; see Gesen. Lg. 8.655. The use of εἷς in this 
sense is founded on the above-mentioned peculiarity of the later language, a predilection 
for expressiveness. 

8 τὶς τῶν map. would have expressed the same meaning, cf. Luke vii. 36; xi. 1 and 
elsewhere, like suorum aliquis etc. in Latin. Both expressions are logically correct, but 
not precisely alike. Unus adstantium implies a numerical unity — one of several. 

* Bretschneider tried, very infelicitously, to reduce to this head also 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12; 
Tit.i.6 μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ giving it the meaning, he shall be the husband of a wife, that 
is, a married man. But besides the fact that the apostle’s demand that none but mar- 
ried men should undertake the supervision of a church is not sufficiently substantiated 
by 1 Tim. iii. 4 f., no careful writer can use εἷς for the indefinite Art. where an ambiguity - 


118 5818. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 


180 is probably a designed antithesis. Also in Mark xiv. 51 var. εἷς 
τίς unus aliquis (partitive in Mark xiv. 47; Luke xxii. 50; Jno. 
xi. 49) ris does not take away the arithmetical force of εἷς (Hein- 
dorf, Plat. Soph. 42; Ast as above, and Plat. Polit. 582; Boisson. 
Marin. p. 15). 


Note 1. In a few particular instances the use or omission of the Article 
is characteristic of the individual style of the various writers. Thus Gers- 
dorf (Sprachchar. I. 39, 272 ff.) has shown that the four Evangelists almost 
always write 6 Χριστός (the expected Messiah, like 6 ἐρχόμενος), while 
Paul and Peter employ Χριστός (as the appellation had become more of a 
proper name). In the Epistles of Paul and Peter, however, those cases 
must be excepted where a noun on which Χριστός depends precedes, (as, 
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣ ὑπομονὴ τοῦ Xp., τῷ αἵματι τοῦ Xp.), since with 
this noun the Art. is never wanting, Rom. vii. 4 ; χυ. 19 ; xvi.16; 1 Cor. 
i. 6,17; vi.15; x.16; 2 Cor. iv. 4; ix.13; xii.9; Gal.i.7; Eph. ii.13; 
2 Thess. iii. 5, ete. Elsewhere, too, Paul not unfrequently employs the 
Article before Χριστός, not merely when accompanied by a preposition, 
but even when in the Nom., as in Rom. xv. 3,7; 1 Cor.i.13; χ. 4; xi. 3, 
etc. Similar diversity on this point occurs in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
see Bleek on v. 5. 

Note 2. MSS. vary extremely in reference to the Article, particularly 
in those passages where its use or omission is matter of indifference. Here 
critics must be guided more by the authority of the Codd. than by the 
supposed style of individual writers. Cf. Matt. xii. 1 στάχυας, Mark vi. 17 
ἐν φυλακῇ (better attested than ἐν τῇ φυλ.), vii. 37 (GAdAovs), x. 2 Φαρισαῖοι, 
x. 46 vids, xi. 4 πῶλον, xii. 33 θυσιῶν, xiv. 33 ᾿Ιάκωβον, xiv. 60 εἰς μέσον, 

108 Luke ii. 12 ἐν φάτνῃ, iv. 9 ὃ vids, iv. 29 ἕως ὀφρύος τοῦ ὄρους, vi. 35 ὑψίστου, 
6th ed. Jno. v. 1; Rom. x. 15; xi. 19; Gal. iv 24; 2 Pet. ii. 8, ete. 

Note 3. Strange to say, most expositors — when contrary to their custom 
they have paid attention to the Article in the N.'T.— have given an erro- 
neous opinion respecting it. Bengel, to be sure, is an exception. But 
Kiihnél is an example. After Krause (a sorry voucher), he supposes that 
in Acts vii. 38 ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, owing to the use of the Article, signifies 
certa populi concio. This meaning may be rendered probable from the 
context; but ἡ ἐκκλ. considered grammatically merely may (as Grotius 
and others maintain) just as well denote the congregation >x-w1 Sop, and 

ἰῷ the Article would be as regular in that case as anywhere. Again, the 
ith οἱ, 


would be occasioned, for men speak and write in order that others may understand. The 
expression, there came a man, supposes also numerical unity, and every one thinks of 
homo aliquis as homo unus; but μίαν γυναῖκα ἔχειν cannot be used for γυναῖκα ἔχειν, as it 
is possible to have several wives (at the same time, or one after another) ; and conse- 
quently numerical unity alone is suggested to everybody. Besides, a person would 
hardly say, the bishop must be the husband of a wife, for, a husband, or married. 


§19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 119 


observation of the same scholar on Acts viii. 26 is but half true. Ἢ ἔρημος 
(63s) must have been used, if Luke wished to distinguish from the rest 
one particular road known to his readers. But if his meaning was, this 
(road) is (now) deserted, untravelled, lies waste, the Article would be as 
little appropriate as in German. Expositors have taken notice of the Art. 
also in 2 Thess. iii. 14 διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς, and have on its account denied 
the possibility of connecting these words with the following σημειοῦσθε. 
Perhaps even the omission of the Article in two Codd. may be thus ac- 
counted for. Paul, however, might with perfect propriety say διὰ τῆς 
ἐπιστολῆς σημειοῦσθε if at the time he presumed upon an answer from the 
Thessalonians: ‘ Note him to me in the epistle (viz. which I hope to receive 
from you, or which in that event you must send me).’ Yet see Liinem. 

Note 4. The place of the Article is immediately before the noun to 
which it belongs; but conjunctions which cannot begin a sentence are 
regularly inserted between the Article and its noun: Matt. xi. 30 6 yap 
ζυγός μου, iii. 4 ἡ δὲ τροφή, Ino. vi. 14 of οὖν ἄνθρωποι etc. This is well 
known, and needs no further illustration. Rost, 436; cf. Hm. Soph. 
Antig. p. 146. 


§ 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 


131 


1. Appellatives, which as expressing definite objects should have » 


the Article, are, not merely in the N. T. but in the best Greek 
authors, employed in certain cases without it. (See Schaefer, 
Melet. p. 4). This omission, however, only takes place when it 
produces no ambiguity and leaves no doubt in the mind of the 
reader whether the object is to be understood as definite or 
indefinite, i.e. 

a. With words which denote objects of which there is but one 
in existence, and which therefore approximate closely to proper 
names :' thus ἥλιος is almost as common as ὁ ἥλιος, and γῆ (Earth) 
not infrequent for ἡ γῆ, (Poppo, Thue. III. III. 46); hence the 
abstract names of virtues and vices, etc.,! as ἀρετή, σωφροσύνη, 
κακία (see Schaef. Demosth. I. 329; Bornem. Xen. conv. p. 52; 
Krii. 87), likewise the names of the members of the animal body 
(Held, Plut. Aem. P. p. 248), very often dispense with the Article. 


The Article is omitted also before many other appellatives, as 109 


1 To which must be added the names of sciences and arts (as ἱππική, see Jacob, Lucian. 
Toxar. p. 98), of magisterial dignities and offices (Schaef. Demosth. II. 112; Held, 
Plutarch. Aem. P. p. 138), of seasons of the year, of corporations (Held, l.c. p. 238), and 
ἘΝ others (Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 303 and ad Plutarch. Cleom. p. 199). See also 

ri. 87. 


6th ed, 


120 § 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 


114 πόλις, ἄστυ (Schaef. Plutarch. p. 416; Poppo, Thue. III. I. 111; 

lhe Weber, Dem. p. 235), ἀγρός (Schaef. Soph. Oed. R. 680), δεῖπνον 
(Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 490; Bornem. Xen. cony. p- 57), even 

132 πατήρ, μήτηρ, ἀδελφός (Schaef. Mel. l.c. aud Demosth. I. 328, also 
Eur. Hee. p.121; Plut.l.c.; Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 134), when from 
the connection no doubt can exist as to what city, field, ete. is 
meant. This omission of the Art., however, is more varied in 
poetry than in prose (Schaef. Demosth. 1. 329). 

In the N. T., where in general this omission of the Art. is less 
frequent than in Greek prose,’ the following instances of abstracts? 
may be noted: 1 Tim. vi.11; Rom. i. 29; Col. iii. 8, and in partie- 
ular δικαιοσύνη Matt. v.10; Acts x. 85; Rom. viii. 10; Heb. xi, 33, 
etc., ἀγάπη Gal. v.6; 2Cor. ii. 8, πίστις Acts vi.5; Rom. i. 5; iii. 28; 
2 Cor. v. 7; 1 Thess. v. 8, ete., κακίᾳ 1 Cor. v. 8; Tit. iii. 3; Jas. 
i. 21, πλεονεξία 1 Thess. ii. 5 ; 2 Pet. ii. 3, ἁμαρτία Gal. ii. 17 ; 1 Pet. 
iv. 1; Rom. iii. 9; vi. 14, etc., σωτηρία Rom. x. 10; 2 Tim. iii. 15; 
Heb. i. 14; vi. 9. Here belong also, ἀγαθόν Rom. viii. 28 (cf. Fr. 
in 1.), πονηρόν 1 Thess. v. 22, καλόν τε καὶ κακόν Heb. v. 14. 

Besides these, we often find in the N. T. without the Article the 
concretes ἥλιος, γῆ (Earth), θεός, πρόςωπον, νόμος, etc., and many 
others, at least when in connection with prepositions etc. they 
form phrases of frequent occurrence (Kluit, 11. 877; Heindorf, 
Plat. Gorg. p. 265). We arrange them in the following list, 
founded on the most approved readings : 


ἥλιος (Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 467), as in Matt. xiii. 6 ἡλίου dvarei- - 
Aavros (Polyaen. 6, 5 ;* Lucian. ver. hist. 2,12; Aelian. 4,1); particularly 
when joined as genitive to another noun it expresses one idea, as ἀνατολὴ 
ἡλίου sunrise Rey. vii. 2; xvi. 12; (Her. 4, 8), φῶς ἡλίου sunlight Rev. 
xxii. 5 var. (Plat. rep. 5, 473 e.), δόξα ἡλίου splendor of the sun 1 Cor. 
xv. 41; or when the sun is mentioned in an enumeration (im connection 
with the moon and stars), as Luke xxi. 25 ἔσται σημεῖα ἐν ἡλίῳ καὶ σελήνῃ 
καὶ ἄστροις tn sun, moon, and stars, Acts xxvii. 20 (Aesch. dial. 3, 17; 
Plat. Crat. 397 d.). 

γῆ, earth 2 Pet. iii. 5,10; Acts xvii. 24, ἐπὶ γῆς Luke ii. 14; 1 Cor. 


1 So we find in Greek authors usually γένει by nation, πλήθει, etc., in the N. T. inva- 
riably τῷ γένει Acts iv. 36; xviii. 2, 24, also τῷ πλήθει Heb. xi. 12. In Greek authors 
the omission of the Article before a Nom. even is not unusual, as ἥλιος ἐδύετο Xen. A. 
1, 10, 15; Lucian. Scyth. 4; in the N. T., on the contrary, Mark i. 32 dre ἔδυ 6 ἥλιος, 
Luke iv. 40 δύνοντος τοῦ ἡλίου, Eph. iv. 26 6 ἥλιος μὴ ἐπιδυέτω. So also in the N. T. 
never σελήνη in the nominative, and there are more instances of the same kind. 

2 The assertion (Harless on Eph. S. 320) that the Article can only be omitted before 
abstracts when they denote virtues, vices, etc., as properties of a subject, is unproved, 
and cannot be proved on rational grounds. Cf. also Kriig. in Jahn’s Jahrb. 1838. I. 47. 


519. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 124 


viii. 5; Eph. iii. 15 (Heb. viii. 4), ἀπ᾿ ἄκρου γῆς Mark xiii. 27; cf. Jacobs, 
Philostr. Imag. p. 266; Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 91; Stallb. Plat. Gorg. 
p- 257. But this word usually has the Art. when it signifies earth ; in 
the sense of /and, on the other hand, the Art. is regularly wanting when 
the proper name of the country follows, as Matt. xi. 24 γῆ Σοδόμων, Liv. 15 | 
Acts vii. 29 ἐν γῇ Μαδιάμ, vii. 36 ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτου, xiii. 19 ἐν γῇ Χαναάν, ete. 
(but Matt. xiv. 84 εἰς τὴν γῆν Γεννησαρέτ). See below, 2.b. Van Hengel’s 
remark on 1 Cor. xv. p. 199 is not to the point. 

οὐρανός, οὐρανοί, is seldom without the Article (cf. Jacobs in the Schulzeit. 
1831, No. 119, and Schoem. Plutarch. Agid. p. 185): a. In the Gospels 
only in the phrase ἐν οὐρανῷ, ἐν οὐρανοῖς, ἐξ οὐρανῶν, ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, but by no 
means always, even in this case (cf. Matt. vi. 1,9; xvi. 19; Mark xii. 25; 
Luke vi. 23, for John except in i. 82 constantly uses ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ) ; b. By 
Paul the Art. is regularly omitted in phrases like ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ, ἐξ οὐρανοῦ 
(ἐκ τοῦ ovpavo}—van Hengel on 1 Cor. xv. p. 199—1is never used by 
Paul) ; in 2 Cor. xii. 2 we find also ἕως τρίτου οὐρανοῦ (Lucian. Philopatr. 
12) see Ὁ. below, and Peter has even in the Nom. οὐρανοί 2 Pet. iii. 5, 12; 
c. The Article is never omitted in Rev. 

θάλασσα, e.g. Acts x. 6, 82 παρὰ θάλασσαν, Luke xxi. 25 ἠχούσης 
θαλάσσης καὶ σάλου; cf. Demosth. Aristocr. 450 ¢.; Diod. S. 1, 82; Dio 
Chr. 35, 436; 37,455; Xen. Eph.5,10; Arrian. Al. 2, 1, 2, and 3; Held, 
in Act. Philol. Monac. II. 182 sqq. Even ἐν ἐρυθρᾷ θαλάσσῃ Acts vii. 36; 
(on the other hand, we find the Art. in Heb. xi. 29). It regularly has 
the Art., however, when opposed to 7 γῆ. 

μεσημβρία in the phrase κατὰ μεσημβρίαν southwards Acts viii. 26, περὶ 
μεσημβρίαν xxii. 6, cf. Xen. A. 1,7, 6 πρὸς μεσημβρίαν, Plat. Phaedr. 259 a. 
ἐν μεσημβρ. So, in general, with the names of the quarters of the heavens, 
Rey. xxi. 13 ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν, ἀπὸ βοῤῥᾶ, ἀπὸ νότου, ἀπὸ δυσμῶν (πρὸς νότον 
Strabo 16, 719, πρὸς ἑσπέραν D. 5. 3, 28, πρὸς ἄρκτον Strabo 15, 715 and 
719; 16, 749, πρὸς νότου Plat. Crit. 112 α. βασίλισσα νότου Matt. xii. 42, 
where, however, it is a sort of proper name), or of a division of the day, 
as Luke xxiv. 29; Acts xxviii. 23; Krii. 85. 

ἀγορά (cf. Bremi, Lys. p.9; Sintenis, Plutarch. Pericl. p. 80) Mark vii. 
4 καὶ ἀπ᾽ ἀγορᾶς, ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται, οὐκ ἐσθίουσι. So in Greek authors 


. often, as Her. 7, 223; 3,104; Lys. Agor.2; Dion. Η. IV. 2117, 6; 2230, 


2; Theophr.ch. 19; Plat. Gorg. 447 ἃ. ; Lucian. adv. ind. 4 and eunuch. 1, 
particularly in the phrase πληθούσης ἀγορᾶς Her. 4,181; Xen. M. 1,1, 10; 
Anab. 1, 8,1; Aelian. 12, 30; D.S. 13, 48 a. 

ἀγρός Mark xv. 21 ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾿ ἀγροῦ (Luke xxiii. 26), Luke xv. 25 ἣν 
6 vids ἐν dypG. Here, however, the word means, not a single definite field 
(ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀγροῦ), but is used generally, from the country (as opposed to the 
town, etc.). So εἰς ἀγρόν Mark xvi. 12, cf. Judg. ix. 27, ἐξ ἀγροῦ Gen. 
xxx. 16; 1 Sam. xi. 5, etc.; Plat. Theaet. 148 ἃ. ; legg. 8, 844 ο. 

θεός occurs frequently (cf. Hm. Aristoph. nub. γ. 816; Bornem. Xen 


133 
115 
Tth ed. 


110 
6th od, 


122 § 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 


conv. p. 142; Jacob, Lucian. Toxar. p. 121), and beyond comparison the 
most frequently in the Epistles, without the Art.,; particularly when it is 
᾿ 134 dependent as a Gen. upon another (anarthrous) noun, as Luke iii. 2; Rom. 
iii. 5; viii. 9; xv. 7, 8,32; 1 Cor. iii. 16; xi.7; 2 Cor.i. 12; viii. 5; 
Eph. v. 5; 1 Thess. ii. 13, in the phrases θεὸς πατήρ 1 Cor. i. 3; 2 Cor.i.2; 
116 Gal. 1.1; Phil.i.2; ii. 11; 1 Pet. i. 2, υἱοὶ or τέκνα θεοῦ Matt. v.9; Rom. 
Mth ed. viii. 14,16; Gal. iii. 26; Phil. ii. 15; 1 Jno. iii. 1, 2 (where these nouns 
111 86 also without the Art.), with Prepositions ἀπὸ θεοῦ Jno. iii. 2; xvi. 30; 
6th ed, Rom. xiii. 1; 1 Cor. i. 50; vi. 19, ἐν θεῷ Jno. iii. 21; Rom. ii. 17, ἐκ θεοῦ 
Acts v. 39; 2 Cor. v. 1; Phil. iii. 9, κατὰ θεόν Rom. viii. 27, παρὰ θεῷ 
2 Thess. i. 6; 1 Pet. ii, 4, also with Adject. 1 Thess. i. 9 θεῷ ζῶντι καὶ 
ἀληθινῷςᾳ (In Jno.i.1 θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος the Art. could not have been omitted 
if John had intended to designate the λόγος as ὁ θεός, because in this con- 
nection θεός alone would be ambiguous. But that John designedly wrote 
θεός is apparent, partly from the distinct antithesis πρὸς τὸν θεόν verses 1, 2, 
and partly from. the whole description of the λόγος. Similarly stands in 
1 Pet. iv. 19 πιστὸς κτίστης without the Art.) 
πνεῦμα ἅγιον, seldom πνεῦμα θεοῦ Acts viii. 15, 17; Rom. viii. 9, 14; Heb. 
vi. 4; 2 Pet. i. 21; 1 Cor. xii. 3, πνεῦμα Phil. ii. 1, also ἐν πνεύματι Eph. 
ii. 22; vi. 18; Col. i. 8, ἐν mv. ἁγίῳ Jude 20. (The baptismal formula εἰς 
τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς Kal τοῦ υἱοῦ Kal Tod ἁγίου πνεύματος is cited in Acta 
Barn. p. 74 thus: εἰς ὄνομα πατρὸς κ. υἱοῦ K. ἁγίου Tv.) 
πατήρ, Heb. xii. 7 vids ὃν οὐ παιδεύει πατήρ, Ino. i. 14 μονογενοῦς παρὰ 
πατρός, and in the formula θεὸς πατὴρ (ἡμῶν) ; μήτηρ only in the phrase ἐκ 
κοιλίας μητρός Matt. xix. 12. 
ἀνήρ (husband), 1 Tim. ii. 12 γυναικὶ διδάσκειν οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν 
ἀνδρός Eph. ν. 23 (but 1 Cor. xi. 3); Luke xvi. 18 πᾶς 6 ἀπολύων τὴν 
γυναῖκα αὑτοῦ..... πᾶς ὃ ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν, does not 
necessarily come under this head, though the first γυνή has the Art.; for 
the last words are to be translated: he who marries a woman dismissed from 
a husband. But in Acts i. 14 one would expect the Art. before γυναιξί 
(see de W.), not so much in Acts xxi. 5; οἷ, however, above. 
πρόςωπον, e.g. Luke v. 12 πεσὼν ἐπὶ πρόςωπον, xvii. 16; 1 Cor. xiv. 25; 
ef. Sir. 1. 17; Tob. xii 16; Heliod. 7, 8 ῥίπτει ἑαυτὸν ἐπὶ πρόςωπον, Achill. 
Tat. 3,1; Eustath. amor. Ismen. 7, p. 286 (Heliod. 1, 16), Acts xxv. 16 
κατὰ mpdswrov, 2 Cor. x. 7 (Exod. xxviii. 27; xxxix. 13, etc.). 
δεξιά, ἀριστερά, and the like, in the formulas ἐκ δεξιῶν Matt. xxvii. 88 ; 
xxv. 33; Luke xxiii. 33, ἐξ εὐωνύμων Matt. xx. 21; xxv. 41; Mark x. 37; 
Krii. 86. 
ἐκκλησία, 3 Ino. 6 ot ἐμαρτύρησάν σου τῇ ἀγάπῃ ἐνώπιον ἐκκλησίας, 1 Cor. 
xiv. 4 (ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ 1 Cor. xiv. 19, 8 ἢ). 
θάνατος, Matt. xxvi. 88 ἕως θανάτου (Sir. xxxvii. 2; li. 6), Phil. ii. 8, 
30 μέχρι θανάτου (Plat. rep. 2,361 ¢. ; Athen. 1,170), Jas. v.20 ἐκ θανάτου 
(Job v. 20; Prov. x. 2; Plat. Gorg. 511 c¢.), Luke ii. 26 μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον, 


§19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 123 


Rom. vii. 13 κατεργαζομένη θάνατον, i. 82 ἄξιοι θανάτου, 2 Cor. iv. 11 εἰς 
θάνατον παραδιδόμεθα, ete.; cf. Himer. 21 μετὰ θάνατον, Dion. H. IV. 2112, 135 
2242; cf. Grimm, Buch der Weish. S. 26. 
θύρα, in the Plur. ἐπὶ θύραις ad fores Matt. xxiv. 33; Mark xiii. 29 ; 
ef. Plutarch. Themist. 29; Athen. 10, 441; Aristid. Orat. Tom. 11. 43 
(on the other hand in the Sing. ἐπὶ τῇ θύρᾳ Acts v. 9). See Sintenis, 
Plutarch. Them. p. 181. 
νόμος, meaning the Mosaic law, Rom. ii. 12, 23; iii. 31; iv. 138, 14,15; 117 
v. 13, 20; vii. 1; x. 4; xiii.8; 1 Cor. ix. 20; Gal. ii. 21; iii, 11, 18,21; th ed. 
iv. 5; Phil. iii. 6; Heb. vii. 12, ete.; always as a Gen. where the prin- 112 
cipal noun has no Art.: ἔργα νόμου, and the like. (In the Gospels, except 
Luke ii. 23, (24,) where, however, a qualifying Gen. follows, we find con- 
stantly 6 νόμος.) As to the Apocr.,see Wahl, clav. 343. Also cf. Bornem. 
Acta p. 201. 
ῥῆμα, meaning God’s word, followed by θεοῦ Rom. x. 17; Eph. vi. 17; 
Heb. vi. 5,€nd without θεοῦ Eph. v. 26. Ὁ) Heammption/, 
vexpot, the dead, always (except in Eph. v. 14) in the phrases ἐγείρειν, 
ἐγείρεσθαι, ἀναστῆναι ἐκ νεκρῶν Matt. xvii. 9; Mark vi. 14, 16; ix. 9, 10; 
xii. 25; Luke ix. 7; xvi. 31; xxiv. 46; Jno. ii: 22; xii. 1, 9,17; xx. 9; 
xxi. 14; Acts iii. 15; iv.2; x. 41; xiii. 30; xxvi.23; Rom. iv. 24; 1 Cor. 
xv. 20, ete., and also ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν (both without Art.) Acts xvii. 32 ; 
xxiv. 21; Rom. i. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 12, 13, 21, 42, ete. Only in Col. ii. 12; 
1 Thess. i. 10 is a var. noted. (On the other hand, almost always ἐγείρεσθαι, 
ἀναστῆναι ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν, Matt. xiv. 2; xxvii. 64; xxviii. 7.) Nexpoéi else- 
- where designates dead persons (Luke vii. 22; 1 Cor. xv. 15, 29, 32, also 
1 Pet. iv. 6 etc.), but of νεκροί, THE dead, as a definitely conceived totality, 
Jno. v. 21; 1 Cor. xv. 52; 2 Cor. i. 9; Col. i. 18.1 The Greeks, too, 
regularly omit the Art. before this word. 
μέσον, in the phrase (ἔστησεν) ἐν μέσῳ Ino. viii. 3; Schoem. Plutarch. 
Agid. p. 126, εἰς μέσον Mark xiv. 60 (but εἰς τὸ μέσον Jno. xx. 19, 26; 
Luke iv. 35; vi. 8), ἐκ μέσου 2 Thess. ii.7 ; more commonly still where ἃ, 
qualifying Gen. follows, Mark vi. 47 ἐν μέσῳ τῆς θαλάσσης, Luke viii. 7 
ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ἀκανθῶν, Acts xxvii. 27 κατὰ μέσον τῆς νυκτός (Theophr. ch. 26). 
See Wahl, clay. apocr. p. 326. 
κόσμος, always in the phrases ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου Luke xi. 50; Heb. 
iv. 3, πρὸ κατ. x. Jno. xvii. 24; 1 Pet.i. 20, ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου Rom. i. 20, 
ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς κόσμου Matt. xxiv. 21; in the Epistles also ἐν κόσμῳ Rom. v. 13; 
1 Cor. viii. 4; xiv.10; Phil. ii. 15; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Pet. v.9. The 
Nom. is but rarely without the Art., as Gal. vi. 14 ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐσταύρωται; 
and according to the best Codd. Rom. iv. 13 must be read: κληρονόμον 
) εἶναι κόσμου. 
κτίσις, creation (i.e. thing created, the world), in the phrase ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς 


1, The distinction alleged by van Hengel on 1 Cor. xv. p. 135 between νεκροί and oi 
νεκροί has no foundation (either in principle or in usage). 





194 § 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 


κτίσεως Mark x. 6; xiii. 19; 2 Pet. iii 4. Yet πᾶσα κτίσις 1 Pet. ii, 18 ; 
136 Col. i. 15 (see Mey.) is everywhere distinguished from πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις Mark 
xvi. 15; Rom. viii. 22; Col. i. 28. 
ὥρα, as in 1 Jno. ii. 18 ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστί; particularly with numerals, as 
ἦν wpa τρίτη Mark xv. 25; Jno. xix. 14, περὶ τρίτην ὥραν Matt. xx. 3; Acts 
x. 9, ἕως ὥρας ἐννάτης Mark xv. 33, ἀπὸ ἕκτης ὥρας Matt. xxvii. 45, ete.; ef. 
D.S.4,15; Held, Plut. Aem. P. p. 229. (In another relation dpa χειμέριος 
Aelian. 7, 13, ὥρα λουτροῦ Polyaen. 6,7.) But so with other nouns also 
when joined to ordinal numerals, as πρώτη φυλακή Heliod. 1, 6; Polyaen. 
2, 35; cf. Ellendt, Arrian. Al. 1. 152, and ἀπὸ πρώτης ἡμέρας Phil. i. 5. 
118 καιρός, in the phrases πρὸ καιροῦ before the time Matt. viii. 29; 1 Cor. 
τὰ ed. iv. 5, κατὰ καιρόν Rom. v. 6 (Lucian. Philops. 21) and ἐν καιρῷ Luke xx. 10 
113 (Xen. C. 8, 5,5; — 2,453; 9, 12, etc.), also ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ 1 Pet.i. ὅ 
θὰ εἰ. like ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις 2 Tim. iii. 1 ; Jas. v. 3. 
ἀρχή (Schaef. Demosth. III. 240), especially in the common phrases ἀπ᾽ 
ἀρχῆς Matt. xix. 8; Acts xxvi. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Jno. i. 1; ii. 7, ete. 
(Her. 2,113; Xen. C. 5, 4,12; Aelian. 2, 4), ἐξ ἀρχῆς Jno. vi. 64; xvi. 4 
(Theophr. ch. 28; Lucian. dial. mort. 19, 2, and mere. cond. 1) and ἐν 
ἀρχῇ Jno.i. 2; Acts xi. 15; (Plat. Phaedr. 245d.; Lucian. gall. 7). All 
these regularly in the Sept. also. 
κύριος, Which in the Gospels usually designates God (the O. T. Lord, cf. 
Thilo, Apocr. I. 169), and in the Epistles especially Paul’s (in accordance 
with the growth of Christian phraseology) most frequently Christ, the Lord 
(Phil. ii. 11; cf. 1 Cor. xv. 24ff.; Krehl, N. T. Wérterb. S. 360), like 
θεός often dispenses with the Article, particularly when it is joined to a 
preposition (chiefly in established phrases like ἐν κυρίῳ) or occurs in the 
Gen. (1 Cor. vii. 22, 25; x. 21; xvi. 10; 2 Cor. iii. 18; xii. 1) or pre- 
cedes Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. 1. 3; Gal. i. 3; Eph. vi. 23; 
Phil. ii. 11; iii. 20). It had already become almost a proper name. It 
has been erroneously maintained (Gabler, in his neuest. theol. Journ. IV. 
S. 11-24) that the meaning of the word depends on the insertion or omis- 
sion of the Article. Christ, the Lord, whom all knew as such and who 
was so often mentioned, the apostles could most easily style κύριος, just 
as θεός nowhere occurs more frequently without the Article than in the 
Bible ; cf. my Progr. de sensu vocum κύριος et 6 κύριος in Actis et Epist. 
Apostolor. Erlang. 1828. 4to. Even in Paul’s writings, however, the 
Article predominates. 
διάβολος the devil, usually has the Article. Only in 1 Pet. v. 8 we find 
ὁ ἀντίδικος ὑμῶν διάβολος in apposition, and in Acts xiii. 10 υἱὲ διαβόλου." 


1”Ayyedos does not belong to the class of words of which a list is given above. When 
used in the Sing. without an Article, it always signifies an angel (one of the many), and 
so in the Plur. ἄγγελοι, angels, e.g. 1 Tim. iii. 16; Gal. iii. 19, ete.; on the other hand 
οἱ ἄγγελοι the angels as a class of beings. Accordingly 1 Cor. vi. 3 ὅτι ἀγγέλους κρινοῦμεν 
must be translated, that we shall judge angels, —not the angels, the whole multitude of 





§19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 125 


That appellatives (particularly in the Nom.) are without the Article in 187 
titles and superscriptions also, is easily accounted for; cf. Matt.i. 1 βίβλος 
γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Mark i. 1 ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, Rey. i. 1 ἀποκάλυψις ! 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 

2, Ὁ. The Article is likewise often omitted before a noun followed 
by a Gen. designating the singly existing object as something apper- 
taining to this individual! (Schaef. Soph. Oed. C. 1468; Bornem. 119 
Xen. Cyr. p. 219; Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 421; ad Plut. Agid. p. Me 
105; Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 277 ; Herm. Lucian. conscr. hist. a 
Ρ. 290),? e.g. Matt. [xvi. 18 πύλαι ἅδου] xvii. 6 ἔπεσον ἐπὶ πρόςωπον 
αὑτῶν cf. xxvi. 39 (Isa. xlix. 23 ἐπὶ πρόςωπον τῆς γῆς ; on the other 
hand, Matt. xxvi. 67 eis τὸ πρόςωπον αὐτοῦ, Rev. vii. 11), Luke 
i. 51 ἐν βραχίονι αὑτοῦ, Rom. i.1 εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ (where Riick. 
still makes unnecessary difficulties), Eph. i. 20 ἐν δεξιᾷ αὑτοῦ (Heb. 
i.3; Matt. xx. 21), Luke xix. 42 ἐκρύβη ἀπὸ ὀφθαλμῶν σου, 1 Cor. 

ii. 16 τίς yap ἔγνω νοῦν κυρίου, 1 Pet. iii. 12, 20; Jas. i. 26; Mark 
viii. 3; xiii. 27; Rom. i. 20; ἢ. δ᾽ Lukei.5; ii.4,11; xiii. 19; 
xix, 13; Heb. xii. 2; 1 Cor. x. 21; xii. 27; xvi. 15; Phil. ii. 16; 
iv. 3; Eph. i. 4,6,12; iv. 30; 1 Thess. v.8; 2 Thess. 1. 9; ii. 2; 
2 Pet. ii. 6; iii. 10; Jude 6 (Acts viii. 5), etc. The same occurs 
very frequently in the Sept. 4180, as 1 Sam. i. 3, 7; iv. 6; v. 2; 
Exod. iii. 11; ix. 22; xvii.1; Cant. ν. 1 ; viii. 2; Judith ii. 7,14; 
iii. 8,9; iv: 11; v.85 vi. 20; 1 Macc. ii. 50; v.66; 3 Esr. i. 26. 
(But in 1 Cor. iv. 14 ὡς τέκνα μου ἀγαπητά it was necessary to 
omit the Article, since the Cor. were not alone the beloved children 
of Paul. In Luke xv. 29 οὐδέποτε ἐντολήν cov παρῆλθον means a 


command of thine, but in Acts i. 8 λήψεσθε δύναμιν érredOovtos 


τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος must be translated: ye shall receive power, 
when the Holy Ghost shall have descended.) 
The Article is thus omitted sometimes when a numeral defines 


angels, but — angels, who, and as many of them as, fall under the κρῖσις. On υἱοθεσία 
Rom. viii. 23, see Fr. against Kiickert. That the word in apposition sometimes has the 
Article, when the principal noun is anarthrous, has been remarked by Geel, ad Dion. 
Chr. Olymp. p. 70. 

1 Accordingly Jno. v. 1 ἑορτὴ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων could not be translated : the festival of the 
Jews (Passover). The Article, however, has much authority in its favor, and has been 
admitted into the text by Tdf. 

? The Hebrew language, as is well known, does not in this construction employ an 
Article before the governing noun. On this Hengstenberg, Christol. I. 565, founded a 
new discovery, which Liicke on Jno. v. 1 has suitably appreciated. 

8 Gersdorf, I. 316 ff., has not duly distinguished the cases. The Article is both used 
and omitted in one and the same clause, Luke xxiii. 46 εἰς χεῖράς σου παρατίθεμαι τὸ 
πνεῦμά μου etc. 





126 § 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 


the noun more nearly ; as, Acts xii. 10 διελθόντες πρώτην φυλακὴν 
καὶ δευτέραν, Mark xv. 25 ἦν ὥρα τρίτη καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν, xv. 

188 88 ἕως ὥρας ἐννάτης, Luke iii. 1 ἐν ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας 
etc., 2 Cor. xii. 2; Eph. vi. 2 (Phil. i. 5 νὰν.) ; cf. from Greek 
authors Lysias 7, 10 τρίτῳ ἔτει, Plato, Min. 319 ο. and Hipp. maj. 
286 b.; Antiph. 6,42 ; Audoc. 4,17; Diog. L. 7,135, 138, 141 sqq. 
(but 7, 150, 151, 153). See above, 1. a. under ὥρα, p. 124. 

By this usage may be defended also Matt. xii. 24 ἐν τῷ Βεελζε- 
βοὺλ, ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων, the reading found in all MSS. Fr. 
(ad Mt. p. 774), without the authority of MSS., substituted ἐν B, 
τῷ apy. etc., as he deemed this omission of the Article strange. 


In Greek authors such omission of the Article, especially when the 
noun is preceded by a preposition, is by no means rare; cf. Xen. C. 6, 1, 
13 περὶ καταλύσεως τῆς στρατιᾶς, Apol. Socr. 30 ἐν καταλύσει τοῦ βίου, Mem, 
120 1, 5, 2 ἐπὶ τελευτῇ τοῦ βίου, 4, 8,10 ; Plat. Phaedr. 257 ο.; Lys. Agorat. 2 
Tth ed. ἐπὶ καταλύσει τοῦ δήμου τοῦ ὑμετέρου, and further on πατρίδα σφετέραν αὐτῶν 
115 καταλιπόντες, Lucian. Scyth. 4 βίον αὐτῶν, Dio Chr. 88, 471 ὑπὲρ γενέσεως 
bth el. αὐτῆς, Strabo 15, 719 ὑπὸ μήκους τῶν ὁδῶν (17, 808), Thue. 2, 88 διὰ μέγε- 
Gos τῆς πόλεως, 7,72. So in German, also, the Article is usually omitted 
after a preposition, e.g. tiber Auflésung des Riithsels ete. In Greek authors, 
however, in such cases even the Gen. is frequently anarthrous, or if not, 
it precedes; as, τῶν χωρίων χαλεπότης : cf. Krii. Dion. H. p. 168; Jacobs, 
Athen. p. 18 sq.; Poppo, Thue. IIT. I. 180. (Xen. C. 8, 6,16; Mem. 1, 4, 

12; Thuc. 1,1; 6, 34; 8, 68). 


3. 0. When several consecutive nouns! connected by καί and 
denoting different objects? agree in case and number, each of them 
regularly takes the Article if they differ in gender ;— not merely, 
when they signify persons, as Acts xiii. 50 tas σεβομένας γυναῖκας 
... καὶ τοὺς πρώτους THs πόλεως (Luke xiv. 26; Eph. vi. 2; Acts 
xxvi. 30), but also inanimate objects Col. iv. 1 τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὴν 
ἰσότητα τοῖς δούλοις παρέχεσθε, Rom. viii. 2 ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρ- 
τίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου, Matt. xxii. 4; Luke x. 21; Rom. xvi. 17; 
Phil. iv.7; 1 Cor. ii.4; Eph. ii.1; Rev. 1. 2; xiv. 7; Heb. iii. 6; 
ef, Xen. C. 2, 2,9 σὺν τῷ θώρακι x. τῇ κοπίδι, Plut. virt. mul. p. 210 
διὰ τὸν ἄνδρα κ. τὴν ἀρετήν, Dion. H. IV. 2245, 4 ἐπὶ τοῦ τόκου καὶ 


1 Benseler, Isocr. Areopag. p. 290 sqq., has collected much from Isocrates on the repe- 
tition and the non-repetition of the Article with connected nouns (Subst. Adject, Par- 
ticip. also Infin.), but without throwing entire light on the subject. Cf. also Tholuck, 
Literar. Anzeig. 1837, No. δ. 

2 For a repetition of the Article is not admissible before connected nouns which, for 
instance, are merely predicates of one and the same person, as in Col. iii. 17 73 θεῷ καὶ 
πατρί, 2 Pet. i. 11 τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἴ. Χρ., Eph. vi. 21; Mark vi. 3; Acts iii. 14. 


a μα er 





§ 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 127 


τῆς λοχείας, 2117, 17 τὰς ψυχὰς καὶ τὰ ὅπλα, 2089,14; D.S.1, 50, 

51, 86; Philostr. her. 3, 2; Diog. L. 3,18; 5,51; Herod. 2, 10, 

15 ; Strabo 3,163 ; 15, 712 ; Plutarch. aud. poét. 9 in. and Themist. 

8; Isocr. Areop. p. 384; Plat. Charm. p.160b.; Sext. Emp. adv. 139 
Math. 2, 58. 

In these connections the repetition of the Article appeared gram- 
matically necessary, while at the same time the ideas connected 
are mostly such as require to be grasped separately. See under 4. 

Where, however, the ideas do not require to be sharply distin- 
guished, or where an adjective is joined to the first noun and to be 
extended also to the second, the repetition of the Article does not 
take place even when the nouns differ in gender; and the one 
Article that precedes serves alike for all the nouns that follow ; 
as, Col. ii. 22 τὰ ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων, Luke 
xiv. 28 ἔξελθε εἰς τὰς ὁδοὺς καὶ φραγμούς, i. 6 ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐντολαῖς 
καὶ δικαιώμασι τοῦ κυρίου, Mark xii. 33; Rev. v. 12. 

Such passages are to be found likewise in Greek authors, — and 121 
far more frequently indeed,—in poetry (Hm. Eurip. Hee: p. 76) Me 
as well as in prose, without any very precise reference to the sense, 

e.g. Plat. rep. 9.586d. τῇ ἐπιστήμῃ καὶ λόγῳ, legg. 6,784 ὁ σωφρονῶν 116 
καὶ σωφρονοῦσα, 6.510¢.; apol.18a.; Crat. 405 ἃ. ; Aristot. anal. ‘th ed 
post. 1,26; Thue. 1,54; Lycurg. 30; Lucian. parasit. 13; Herod. 

8, 6,11; Ael. anim. 5, 26; οἵ, also Κα. Dion. p. 140, and Xen. 
Anab. p. 92, Bornem. Cyrop. p. 668. 

When such nouns are disjoined by #, the Article is invariably 
repeated ; as, Matt. xv. 5 τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί, Mark iv. 21 ὑπὸ tov 
μόδιον ἢ ὑπὸ τὴν κλίνην, Rey. xiii. 17. 

When the connected nouns differ in number the repetition of the Article 
is naturally and grammatically almost indispensable; as, Col. ii. 13 ἐν τοῖς 
παραπτώμασι καὶ τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ, Eph. ii. 8 τὰ θελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς Kal τῶν 
διανοιῶν, 1 Tim. v.23; Tit. ii. 12; Acts xv. 4,20; xxviii. 17; Matt. v.17; 
Rey. ii.19. Cf. Plato, Crito 47 ο. τὴν δόξαν καὶ τοὺς ἐπαίνους, Dion. H. IV.— 
2238, 1 ὑπὸ τῆς παρθένου καὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτὴν γυναικῶν. Yet Xen. A. 2,1,7 
ἐπιστήμων τῶν περὶ τὰς τάξεις τε καὶ ὁπλομαχίαν, Agath. 14, 12 τὰς δυνάμεις 
καὶ πόλεμον. But 1 Cor. iv. 9 θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν τῷ κόσμῳ καὶ ἀγγέλοις καὶ 
ἀνθρώποις does not come under this head; the last two nouns without the 
Art. particularize the τῷ κόσμῳ : the world, — angels as well as men. 


4. ἃ. If, however, such nouns connected by καί are of the same 
gender, the Article is omitted 

1) When the connected nouns are regarded as only parts of one 
whole, or members of one community (Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. 


128 § 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 


p- 253 ; Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 455) ; as, Mark xv. 1 συμβούλιον 
ποιήσαντες οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ γραμματέων 
140 (where the elders and scribes are designated as only one class of 
individuals, in distinction from the high priests), Luke xiv. 3, 21; 
Col. ii. 8,19; Eph. ii. 20; v.5; Phil. i. 7; ii. 17; Acts xxiii. 7; 
2 Pet. i. 10 (Xen. A. 2, 2,5; 8,1, 29; Plat. Phil. 28e.; Dion. 
H. IV. 2235, 5; Plutarch. aud. poét. 1 in. 12 in.). 
2) When between the first noun and its Article a Gen. or some 
other attributive intervenes, which also qualifies the second ; as, 
1 Thess, ii. 12 εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ βασιλείαν καὶ δόξαν, iii. T ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ 
θλίψει καὶ ἀνάγκῃ ἡμῶν, Rom. i. 20 ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ 
θειότης, Phil. i. 25; Eph. iii. 5. Cf. Dion. H. 1V. 2240, 9 τὰς 
αὑτῶν γυναῖκας καὶ θυγατέρας, 2089, 4; D.S.1, 86 τὴν προειρημένην 
ἐπιμέλειαν καὶ τιμήν, 2,18; Ael. anim. 7, 29; Aristot. eth. Nicom. 
4,1,9; 7, 7,1.1 So also when the common Genitive follows the 
second noun; as, Phil. i. 20 κατὰ τὴν ἀποκαραδοκίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα 
122 μου, i. T ἐν τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ κ. βεβαιώσει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 1 Pet. ii. 25 
The. (on Phil. i. 19 see Mey.). Of. Benseler p. 298 sq. 


Under 1. it should be noted, that in a series of nouns forming a single 
category, only the first has the Article ; as, Acts xxi. 25 φυλάσσεσθαι αὐτοὺς 
οὖν τὸ αἷμα καὶ πνικτὸν καὶ πορνείαν, Eph. iii. 18 τί τὸ πλάτος K. μῆκος K. βάθος 

117 x. ὕψος, πο. v.38; 1 Cor. v.10; οὗ Her. 4, 71 θάπτουσι καὶ τὸν οἰνοχόον κ. 
Gth ed. μάγειρον κ. ἱπποκόμον κ. διήκονον K. ἀγγελιηφόρον, etc.; Plato, Euthyph. p. 
7c. For instances with proper names, see Acts i. 13; xv. 23. 


5. On the other hand, the Article is wsed in the case under 
consideration, commonly 
a. When each of the conneeted nouns is to be regarded as inde- 
pendent (Schaef. Dem: V. 501; Weber, Dem. 268), 1 Cor. iii. 8 
ὁ φυτεύων καὶ 6 ποτίζων ἕν εἰσιν, Acts xxvi. 80 ἀνέστη ὁ βασιλεὺς 
καὶ ὁ ἡγεμών, etc., Mark ii. 16 οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι (two 
separate classes οἵ Christ’s adversaries combined for one object), 
Jno. xix. 6 of ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ ὑπηρέται the high priests and the 
(subordinate) attendants (with their attendants), ii. 14; xi. 47; 
Mark ii. 18; vi. 21; xi. 9,18, 27; xii. 13; xiii.17; xiv.43; Luke 
1.°58 ὙΠ. 245 “xi: 39,48: “xu. 11s xv; 6; 93° xx. 20; xxi, 23; 
xxiii. 4; Acts iv. 23; vi. 4,13; xiii. 43; xv. 6; xxiii. 14; xxv. 15; 
Rom. vi. 19; Eph. iii. 10,12; 2 Cor. xiii. 2; Phil. iv. 6; 1 Tim. 
iv. 6; Jas. iii. 11; 1 Jno. ii. 22,)24; iv. 6; v.6; Rev. vi. 15; 
__- Vii. 12; xiii. 10,16; xxii. 1; cf. Xen. athen. 1,4; Lys. Agorat. 2; 


1 Tn this case, even when the nouns are of different gender, as in Lysias in Andoc, 17 
περὶ τὰ ἀλλότρια ἱερὰ καὶ ἑορτὰς ἠσέβει. Cf. above, 3. 





§ 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 129 


adv. Nicom. 3; Isocr. Areop. p. 852; permut. 736; Ὁ. 5.1, 80 141 
(διὰ τὴν ἀνυδρίαν Kal τὴν σπάνιν τῆς ἁπάσης τροφῆς) 8, 48; 5, 29; 
17, 52; Plut. virt. mul. p. 214 ἔπεμψε τὴν γυναῖκα x. τὴν θυγατέρα, 
Ael. anim. 7, 29; Diog. L. 5, 52;! Weber, Demosth. p. 395. 

So especially when the two nouns are connected by re... καί 
or xa)... καί, and thus more prominently exhibited as independent 
(Schaef. Demosth. 111. 255; IV. 68) Luke xxiii. 12; Acts v. 24; 
xvii. 10, 14; xviii. 5; Phil. iii. 10; Heb. ix. 2; οἵ, Ael. anim. 7, 
29; Theophr. char. 25 (16); Thuc. 5,72; Xen. C.7,5,41; Mem. 
1,1, 4; Aristot. pol. 8,5; Isocr. Demon. p. 1 and 12; permut. 
738; D.S.1,69; 4,46; Lucian. fug. 4; Arrian. Ind. 34, 5, ete. 
Even in this case, however, if there be no special antithesis Greek 
authors (according to good Codd.) sometimes omit the Article ; 
see Poppo, Thue. I. 196 sq. ; Ill. I. 895; Geel, Dion. Chr. Ol. p. 
295; cf. Xen. Μ. 1, 1, 19 τά τε λεγόμενα καὶ πραττόμενα (where, 
as an antithesis to these two participles, immediately follows καὶ 
Ta avy Bovrevoueva) Thuc. 5,27; Plat. rep. 6,510 ὁ. and Phaed. 123 
78b.; Dion. H. IV. 2242,2; Diod. 8. 1,50; 2, 30; Arrian. Ind. te. 
5,1; Dio Chr. 7,119; Mr. Ant. 5,1. Cf. also Mtth. 715. 

When the influence of a disjunctive particle comes in, the repe- 
tition of the Article is obviously necessary ; as, Luke xi. 51 μεταξὺ 
τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου καὶ τοῦ οἴκου, Matt. xxiii. 35; 1 Cor. xiv. T πῶς 
γνωσθήσεται τὸ αὐλούμενον ἢ τὸ κιθαριζόμενον ; Matt. x. 14; xvii. 
25; xxiii. 17,19; Mark xiii. 32; Luke xiii. 15; xxii. 27; Jno. iii. 
19; Acts xxviii. 17; Rom.iv.9; 1Cor.xiv.5. Cf. Isocr. permut. 118 
Ρ. 746. 6th ed, 

b. When the first noun is followed by a Gen., and the second, 
therefore, is appended to an independent group; as, 1 Cor. i. 28 
τὰ ἀγενῆ τοῦ κόσμου Kal τὰ ἐξουθενημένα, V. 10. 

If each of the connected nouns has its Genitive, the repetition 
of the Article before the second noun is unnecessary, since the two 
nouns are separated without it; as, Phil. i. 19 διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως 
καὶ ἐπιχορηγίας τοῦ πνεύματος, etc. 

Note 1. Variants occur in a very great number of passages, e.g. Matt. 
xxvil.3; Mark viii. 31; x. 33; xi.15; Luke xxii.4; Acts xvi. 19; Rom. 
iv. 2, 11,19; 1 Cor. xi. 27; 1 Thess. i. 8. 

1 We find the Article both used and omitted before nouns of the same gender in 
Arrian. Epict. 1, 18,6 τὴν ὄψιν τὴν διακριτικὴν τῶν λευκῶν καὶ μελάνων ... τῶν ἀγαθῶν καὶ 
τῶν κακῶν. Somewhat differently in Acts vi. 9 τινὲς τῶν ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς τῆς λεγομένης 
Διβερτίνων καὶ Κυρην. καὶ ᾿Αλεξανδρ., καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ Κιλικίας καὶ ᾿Ασίας, where Κυρην. and 
*AAet. combined with Λιβερτ. constitute one party (with a synagogue in common), as 


the other synagogue corporation was formed of the Asiatic and Cilician Jews. 
17 


130 § 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 


Moreover, the view taken of the mutual relation of the connected nouns 
142 may frequently be a matter of indifference; it depends upon the writer 
how he will regard it; (in 1 Thess. i. 7 we find ἐν τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ ἐν τῇ 
᾿Αχαΐᾳ but in 8 καὶ ᾿Αχαΐᾳ). Hence there are passages where the reader 
would not miss the Article, e.g. 1 Tim. v. 5;1 while in others it might 
perhaps be used, as in Eph. ii. 20 (Mey. inl.). See in general, Engelhardt, 
Plat. Menex. p. 253; Poppo, Thue. IIL. I. 395. 
In Tit. ii. 13 ἐπιφάνεια τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ 
-Xp., for reasons which lie in the doctrinal system of Paul, I do not regard 
σωτῆρος as a second predicate by the side of θεοῦ, as if Christ were first 
styled 6 μέγας θεός and then σωτήρ. The Article is omited before σωτῆρος, 
because the word is made definite by the Genitive ἡμῶν, and the apposition 
precedes the proper name: of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Ohrist2 
Similar is 2 Pet. i.1,where there is not even a pronoun with σωτῆρος. So 
124 also in Jude 4 two different subjects may be referred to, since κύριος, as 
ith el. made definite by ἡμῶν, does not require the Article in order to mean Ἰησοῦν 
Χριστὸν ὅς ἐστι κύριος ἡμῶν. (In 2 Thess, i. 12 we have simply an instance 
of κύριος for ὃ κύριος.) 
119 Note 2. The omission of the Article in Luke x. 29 τίς ἐστί μου πλησίον, 
Gh ed. and 86 τίς τούτων ... πλησίον δοκεῖ σοι γεγονέναι τοῦ ἐμπ., seems strange, as 
one would have expected ὁ πλησίον (see Markland, Eur. Suppl. 110), since, 
moreover, πλησίον is an adverb. A similar instance has been quoted by 
Déderlein (Synon. I. 59) from Aeschyl. Prom. 938 ἐμοὶ δ᾽ ἔλασσον Ζηνὸς 
ἢ μηδὲν μέλλει, where μηδέν appears to be put for τοῦ μηδέν. In both the 
passages from Luke, however, the adverb also is allowable: who 7s near 
me? See Bornem. in 1. 


1 As the words run: mposuéver ταῖς δεήσεσι καὶ ταῖς mposevxais, prayer is distributed 
into its two kinds ; without the repetition of the Article, prayer and petitions would be 
blended into one. 

2 In the above remarks I did not mean to deny that σωτῆρος ἡμῶν can grammatically 
be regarded as a second predicate dependent on the Article τοῦ ; only, doctrinal con- 
viction, deduced from Paul’s teaching, that this apostle could not have called Christ the 
great God, induced me to show that there is also no grammatical obstacle to taking καὶ 
owt. ... Χριστοῦ by itself as a second subject. Since the anonymous writer in Tholuck’s 
Liter. Anzeiger (as referred to) has not proved that, according to my acceptation of the 
passage the Article must have been repeated before σωτῆρος (the passages quoted as 
parallel are not analogous, see Fr. Rom. II. 268), still less that to introduce Christ as 
ὁ μέγας θεός is in harmony with Paul’s representation of the relation of Christ to God, 
I adhere to the above interpretation. Examples, such as those quoted § 19, 2, will at 
once satisfy the impartial inquirer that the Article was not necessary before σωτῆρος ; 
and the fact that elsewhere σωτήρ is applied also to God, is nothing to the purpose. 
Enough that σωτὴρ ἡμῶν our Saviour is a perfectly definite predicate, just as his face is ; 
πρόσωπον is applicable to a far greater number of individuals than σωτήρ. The words 
8.38: If the expression σωτὴρ ἡμῶν invariably occurred in the N. T. of a single definite 
individual only ete. contain an arbitrary assumption. Matthies has contributed to the 
discussion nothing decisive. . 





Di il ee 








§20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 131 


§ 20. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 


1. Attributives (Adjectives, Genitives, or Adjuncts formed with 
Prepositions!) annexed to a noun which has the Article, are placed 
either 

a. Between the Article and the noun, as ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος 
Matt. xii. 35, τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα Matt. xviii. 20, τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, ἡ τοῦ 
θεοῦ μακροθυμία 1 Pet. iii. 20, ἡ ἄνω κλῆσις Phil. iii. 14, ἡ ἐν φόβῳ 
ἁγνὴ ἀναστροφή 1 Pet. iii. 2, ἡ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ διαθήκη Rom. xi. 27, ἡ 
Kat ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις ix. 11, τὸ καινὸν αὐτοῦ μνημεῖον Matt. xxvii. 
60; cf. 2 Pet. ii. 7; Heb. ν. 14; vi. 1. Or, 

b. After the noun; in which case 

a. If they are adjectives? or adjuncts with prepositions, they 
uniformly take the repeated Article, but 

B. If Genitives of nouns, they usually take it only aa. when 
these additions are to be strengthened, or to be made more promi- 
nent (1 Cor. i. 18 ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ, Tit. ii. 10 τὴν διδασκαλίαν 
τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ; see Schaef. Melet. p.8,72sq.; Mtth. 727),® 
particularly when relationship is added for distinction’s sake, as 
Jno. xix. 25 Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ," Acts xiii. 22 Δαβὶδ ὁ τοῦ ᾿Ιεσσαί, 


1 Genitives of personal pronouns are joined to nouns, as is well known, without the 
aid of the Article, as 6 παῖς μου. They blend, as it were, with the substantive. 

2 It is obvious that this applies only to adjectives used as attributives to substantives. 
%n Luke xxiii. 45 ἐσχίσθη τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ μέσον, the word μέσον belongs to 
the verb: was rent ... in the middle; τὸ μέσον καταπέτασμα would have a different mean- 
ing. So the similar adjectives of space or number ἔσχατος, ὕλος, μόνος, ὀλίγος always 
appear without the Article when they are not really epithets, — either a. afler the noun, 
as Matt. xvi. 26 ἐὰν τὸν κόσμον ὅλον κερδήσῃ if he gain the whole world (the world wholly), 
x. 30 ai τρίχες τ. κεφαλῆς πᾶσαι ἠριθμημέναι εἰσίν (ix. 35; Jno. v. 22; Plato, epin. 983 a.), 
Matt. xii. 4 οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν φαγεῖν ... εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν μόνοις ; or Ὁ. before it, Matt. iv. 23; 
Heb. ix. 7 μόνος ὃ ἀρχιερεύς, Ino. vi. 22; see Gersdorf, I. 371 ff., who has collected ex- 
amples with little judgment. Cf. Jacob, Lucian. Al. p. 51; Krii. 104 f.; Rost, S. 435. 

8 Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 55; Mdv. p.12. This construction, however, gradually lost 
its force, and many authors almost invariably put the Article before such a Genitive 
even when no emphasis is intended. So, in particular, Demosth., Isocr. and Xen. 
Ephes. The orators might have some reason for this in spoken discourse. Cf. Siebelis, 
Pausan. I. 17. 

* The precise meaning of the above is: among the women called Mary, the (particular 
one) of Clopas (the wife of Clopas). The Article is not used where the annexed Gen~ 
itive is not intended to convey any sharp distinction, as Luke vi. 16 Ἰούδαν ᾿Ιακώβου, 
Acts i. 13 Ἰάκωβος ᾿Αλφαίου, just as Her. 1, 59 Λυκοῦργος ᾿Αριστολαΐδεω and Dion. H. 
comp. 1 Διονυσίου ᾿Αλεξάνδρου (in both passages, however, Schaef. would insert the Arti- 
cle), or Aristot. polit. 2, 6 Ἱππόδαμος Εὐρυφῶντος, and Thuc. 1, 24 φΦάλιος ᾿Ερατοκλείδου 
(Poppo, Thue. I. 195), Thilo, Act. Thom. p. 3; cf. Hm. Vig. 701. On the other hand, 
in Luke xxiv. 10 we must unhesitatingly read, with the most approved MSS., Μαρία ἣ 


A ͵ 


148 


125 
th ed, 


182 820. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, Ὁ. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES 


120 Matt. iv. 21; x. 2; Mark iii. 17; 88. when the noun has already 

Mel. its (personal) Genitive, as Matt. xxvi. 28 τὸ αἷμά μου τὸ τῆς καινῆς 
διαθήκης, yet the Art. here is not quite established. 

c. Rarely such attributives, particularly if adjectives, are put 
before the noun and its Article ; as, Acts xxvi. 24 μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ 
ἔφη see above § 18, Matt. iv. 23 περιῆγεν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ. 

144 Incase a. more than one attributive may be inserted between 
the Article and the noun ; as, ὁ ἅγιος καὶ ἄμωμος ἄνθρωπος. The 
Article then is usually not repeated. With qualifying Genitives 
or adjuncts appended by means of Prepositions, there are instances 
of the repetition of the Article; as, Luke i. 70 διὰ στόματος τῶν 
ἁγίων τῶν ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος προφητῶν, 1 Pet. iv. 14 τὸ τῆς δόξης Kal τὸ τοῦ 
θεοῦ πνεῦμα, i.e. the Spirit of glory and (consequently) the Spirit 
of God, — the Spirit of glory, which is no other than the Spirit of 
God himself. Similar is Thuc. 1, 126 ἐν τῇ τοῦ Διὸς τῇ μεγίστῃ 
ἑορτῇ, and Plat. rep. 8, 565 ἃ. wept τὸ ἐν ᾿Αρκαδίᾳ τὸ Tod Διὸς ἱ ΑΝ; 
only that καί is wanting here. 

In case b. also, there is no objection to the accumulation of 
adjuncts, as Heb. xi. 12 ἡ ἄμμος ἡ παρὰ τὸ χεῖλος τῆς θαλάσσης, ἡ 
ἀναρίθμητος, Revit 12 τὴν ῥομφαίαν τὴν δίστομον τὴν ὀξεῖαν, Krii. 
102; except that when the last are not connected by καί (ὃ 19, 4) 
the Article must be repeated.! 

It will be necessary to explain here more minutely, and to con- 
firm by examples, the case b. a. 

126 a. Adjectives and possessive pronouns with the Article are 

Th el. placed after the noun, either 

Quite alone, as Jno. x. 11 6 ποιμὴν ὃ καλός, Acts xii. 10 ἐπὶ τὴν 
πύλην τὴν σιδηρᾶν, Ino. Vii. 6 ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐμός, i. 9; iv. 11; xv. 1; 
Luke ii. 17; iii. 22; viii. 8; Acts xix.16; Eph. vi. 13; Col.i. 21; 
2 Tim. iv. 7; 1 Cor. vii. 14; xii. 2,31; 1 Jno.i.3; Jas. i. 9; iii. T 
(in which case the adjective sometimes is subjoined for greater 
perspicuity, ef. particularly Jas. iii. 7, sometimes is to be made 
more emphatic, Bornem. Lue. p. xxxvi.; Mdv. 11). Or 

When the governing noun is amplified by a Gen. or in some 
other way, as Matt. iii. 17 ὁ vids pov ὁ ἀγαπητός, 2 Cor. vi. T διὰ 
τῶν ὅπλων τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῶν δεξιῶν καὶ ἀριστερῶν, Ino. vi. 18 τῶν 
πέντε ἄρτων τῶν κριθίνων, Matt. vi. 6; Luke vii. 47 ; Tit. ii. 11; 
"IaxéBov. In general cf. Fr. Mr. p. 696 sq. The collocation of words in Pausan. 2. 
22, 6 τῆς Popdvews Νιόβης does not occur in the N. T. 

1 A rare repetition of the Article, in accordance with the above rules, occurs in Rey. 


Xxi. 9 ἦλθεν εἷς ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλων τῶν ἐχόντων Tas ἑπτὰ φιάλας (τὰς) γεμούσας (τῶν) 
ἑπτὰ πληγῶν τῶν ἐσχάτων. 





§ 20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 133 


Heb. xiii. 20, ete. (The N. T. writers liked to avoid the construction 
τὸν μονογ. θεοῦ υἱόν as intricate ; cf. Jno. iii. 16; 1 Jno. iv. 9.) 

In the text. rec. of 1 Jno. v. 20 ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος we find the adj. 121 
without the Article after the noun. The better Codd., however, δ 





~ omit the Article before ζωή also. The common roadinas in itself 


considered is by no means to be rejected, as in such cases later 
writers begin to omit the Article (Bhdy. 8. 323),! although the 
examples from Long. past. 1,16; Heliod. 7,5; Diod. 8. 5,40 are 145 
not quite parallel to that from John. Besides, ζωὴ αἰών. had 
already come to be regarded as a single idea, cf. Jno. iv. 36. In 
Luke xii. 12, Griesb. and Schott have τὸ yap πνεῦμα ἅγιον, but 
Knapp and all recent editors give τὸ yap ἅγιον πνεῦμα, without 
noting any variants. In1 Cor. χ. 8 ; Gal.i.470 βρῶμα πνευματικόν 
and ὁ αἰὼν πονηρός are to be considered as blending together into 
one leading idea; and αὐτό and éveor., as frequently, have been 
inserted as epithets between the Article and the Substantive ; cf. 
1 Pet. i. 18. See also Heb. ix. 1 τὸ ἅγιον κοσμικόν. With Jno. 
v. 36 ἐγὼ ἔχω τὴν μαρτυρίαν μείζω τοῦ ᾿Ιωάννου (a predicate: the 
witness that I have is greater than, etc., Rost 490) may be com- 
pared Isocr. Philipp. ὁ. 56 τὸ σῶμα θνητὸν ἅπαντες ἔχομεν. Further, 
οἵ. Schaef. Plut. V. 80. 

b. The Article is used with subjoined amplifications of the 
principal noun consisting of a noun and preposition : 1 Thess. i. 8 
ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν ἡ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, 2 Cor. viii. 4 τῆς διακονίας τῆς εἰς 
τοὺς ἁγίους, Jas. i. 1 ταῖς φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορ, Acts xv. 23 
τοῖς κατὰ τὴν ᾿Αντιόχειαν ... ἀδελφοῖς, τοῖς ἐξ ἐθνῶν, xxiv. 5 πᾶσι 
τοῖς ᾿Ιουδαίοις τοῖς κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην, iii. 16; iv. 2; viii. 1; xi. 22; 
xxvi. 4, 12,22; xxvii.5; Mark iv. 31; xiii. 25; Jno.i.46; Luke 
xx. 85; Rom. iv. 11; vii. 5, 10; viii. 89; x. 5; xiv.19; xv. 26, 
81; xvi. 1; 1 Cor. ii. 11 f.; iv.17; xvi. 1; 2 Cor. ii. 6; vii. 12; 
ix.1; xi.3; Phil. i. 11; iii. 9; 1 Thess. ii. 1; iv. 10; 1 Tim.i.14; 
2 Tim. ii. 1; Eph. i. 15; Rev. xiv.17; xvi. 12; xix.14; xx. 13. 
(Variants occur in Acts xx. 21; Tusk v. 7; Jno. xix. 38; Rom. 
x.1.) For examples from Arrian (yet the like are to be found 
in every page of the Greek prose authors) see Ellendt, Arrian 497 
Al. I. 62. Τὰ ed. 

This mode of annexing an attributive (by bebo it in after- 
wards), as the more simple, is far more frequent in the N. T. than 
the insertion of it between the Article and the noun. The LXX. 


1 According to the testimony of good Codd. even the earlier writers in certain cases 
did the same; cf. Schneider, Plat. civ. IL. 319, and Avrii. in Jahn’s Jahrb. 1838. I. 61. 


146 


1384 820. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 


also, as a slight inspection will show, have regularly observed the 
use of the Art. in this case. 

c. Participles, as attributives, in as far as they have not entirely 
dropped the notion of time, are not treated in this case altogether 
like adjectives. They take the Article only when some relation 
already known or especially noteworthy (is qui, quippe qui) is 
indicated, and consequently the idea expressed by the participle 
is to be made more prominent, e.g. 1 Pet. v.10 ὁ θεὸς... ὁ καλέσας 
ἡμᾶς εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον αὑτοῦ δόξαν... ὀλίγον παθόντας, αὐτὸς KaTap- 
τίσαι God ... who hath called us unto his eternal glory, ... after 
that we have suffered a while etc., Eph. i. 12 εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς εἰς 
ἔπαινον τοὺς προηλπικότας ἐν τῷ Xp. we, the we who (quippe qut) 


ar have hoped (as those who have hoped), ef. vs. 19; Heb. iv. 3; vi. 18; 


“. Rom. viii. 4; 1 Cor. viii. 10; Jno. i. 12; 1 Jno. v.13; 1 Thess. i. 10; 
iv.5; 1 Pet.i3; iii. 5; Jas. iii.6; Acts xxi. 38; ef. Dion. H. 11. 
1922; Polyb. 8, 45, 2; 8, 48,6; Lucian. dial. m. 11, 1 ἃ. 

On the other hand, the participle occurs without the Article in 
Acts xxiii. 27 τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον συλληφθέντα ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων hunc 
virum comprehensum (who was seized, after he had been seized), 
2 Cor. xi. 9 ὑστέρημά μου προςανεπλήρωσαν ot ἀδελφοὶ ἐλθόντες 
ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας the brethren, after they had arrived, Acts iii. 26 
ἀναστήσας ὁ θεὸς τὸν παῖδα αὑτοῦ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτόν, etc., God, hav- 
ing raised up (causing to appear) his Son, sent him, etc. (on the 
other hand, Heb. xiii. 20), Rom. ii. 27 κρινεῖ ἡ ἐκ. φύσεως ἀκροβυστία 
τὸν νόμον τελοῦσα σέ etc., if or thereby that it fulfils etc. Cf. Luke 
xvi. 14; Jno. iv. 6, 89,45; 1Cor.i.7; xiv. 7; 2 Cor. ili. 2; Heb. 
x.2; xii. 23; 1 Pet.i.12 (Fr. Mt. p. 432; Stallb. Plat. apol. p. 14). 
So Acts xxi. 8 εἰς τὸν οἶκον Φιλίππου τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ ὄντος ἐκ τῶν 
ἑπτά is to be translated: qui erat, as being one of the seven (yet 
some authorities give τοῦ here, which introduces into the passage 
a false emphasis), Rom. xvi. 1 cf. Demosth. Con. 728 ο. Εὐξίθεον 
τουτονὶ ὄνθ᾽ ἡμῖν συγγενῆ, D. S. 17, 88 ὁ παῖς ὧν ἕξ ἐτῶν, 8, 23 τὸν 
πίπτοντα καρπὸν ὄντα καλόν, Philostr. Apoll. 7, 10 ἐν τῇ νήσῳ 
ἀνύδρῳ οὔσῃ πρότερον, Thue. 4, 3; 8,90; Demosth. Polyel. 110 b. ; 
Isocr. Trap. 870; Lucian. Hermot. 81; dial. τὰ. 10, 9; Alciphr. 
8,18; Strabo, 8,164; Long. 2,2; Philostr. Her. 3,4 and Sophist. 
15:23, 1; 


In Eph. vi. 16 τὰ βέλη τὰ πεπυρωμένα the Article is not fully established 
(Lchm. has cancelled it) ; if it is not genuine, the meaning of the passage 
is: the darts, when they burn, or though they burn (to quench the darts of 
Satan... burning as they are). In 2 Jno. 7 ἐρχόμενον belongs to the 





§ 20, ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b, WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 135 


predicate ; and in Gal. iii. 1 Ἰησοῦς Xp. προεγράφη ἐν ὑμῖν ἐσταυρωμένος is 128 
to be translated: Jesus Christ as one who has been crucified ; cf. 1 Cor. th oh 
i. 23; (otherwise in Matt. xxviii. 5). 

The above passage, 1 Pet. v.10, ὃ θεός, ὃ καλέσας ἡμᾶς ... ὀλίγον παθόν- 
ras is peculiarly instructive respecting the use and the omission of the Arti- 
cle with Participles. Whether the Article is to be used or omitted before 
the Participle, depends sometimes on the subjective view of the writer. 147 
Rom. viii. 1 rots ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν etc., with a 
comma after’Inood, means: to those who are in Christ Jesus, inasmuch as they 
walk not after the flesh. On the other hand, rots μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν, 
with greater prominence of the apposition, means: to those who are in Ohrist 
Jesus, as persons who walk not etc., to those who walk not etc.; cf. Mtth. 
718. The whole clause, however, p27)... πνεῦμα is undoubtedly spurious. 

When a Participle with the Article is subjoined in apposition to a noun, 
or put in the Vocative (as if in apposition to ov), it sometimes denotes 
ridicule or disapprobation, or prominently points out some peculiarity as a 
subject of ridicule or disapprobation. Expositors of Greek authors have 
frequently attributed to the Article itself a derisive force (articulus trrisi- 
ont inservit, Valcken. Eur. Phoen. 1637; Markland, Eurip. Suppl. 110; 123 
Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. p. 12, and Apol. p. 70); this, however, lies only in Mth od 
the thought and its special prominence (and in speaking may also be con- 
veyed by the voice). Here, for instance, may be referred from the N. T. 
Rom. ii. 1 τὰ yap αὐτὰ πράσσεις ὃ κρίνων, Matt. xxvii. 406 καταλύων 
τὸν ναόν... κατάβηθι ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ [Jno. v. 12] etc. See Hm. Eur. 
Alcest. 708 ; Mtth. 722. 

2. To the rule explained under b. there are unquestionable — 
indeed, well-nigh standing — exceptions, viz. 

When an adjunct (consisting of a noun and preposition) which 
in reality forms with the substantive but one leading idea, is to be 
linked to the preceding noun simply by the voice, the grammatical 
connective of the written language (i.e. the Article) is wanting, 
e.g. Col. i. 8 δηλώσας ἡμῖν τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην ἐν πνεύματι your love 
in the Spirit, see Huther, 1 Cor. x. 18 βλέπετε τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ κατὰ 
σάρκα (opp. to ‘lop. κατὰ πνεῦμα), 2 Cor. vii. T τὸν ὑμῶν ζῆλον ὑπὲρ 
ἐμοῦ, Eph. ii. 11. This takes place especially, 

a. In the oft-recurring apostolic (Pauline) phrase, ἐν Χριστῷ 
᾿Ιησοῦ, or ἐν κυρίῳ, or κατὰ σάρκα, as Col. i. 4 ἀκούσαντες τὴν πί- 
στιν ὑμῶν ἐν Χρ.᾽1. καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, Eph. 

i. 15 ἀκούσας τὴν καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς πίστιν ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ ᾽1. καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην 
τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, Rom. ix. 3 τῶν συγγενῶν μου κατὰ σάρκα, 
1 Thess. iv. 16 οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται πρῶτον the dead 
in Christ (1 Cor. xv. 18), with which in vs. 17 is contrasted ἡμεῖς 
oi ζῶντες, for these are ζῶντες ἐν Χριστῷ (of the resurrection of 





136 § 20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, Ὁ. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 


non-Christians Paul has here no occasion to speak), Phil. iii. 14; 
Eph. iv. 1 (where Paul, if ἐν κυρίῳ is to be connected with παρακαλῶ, 
would have placed this latter word after ὑμᾶς ; δέσμιος ἐν κυρίῳ 
129 gives the proper emphasis to the admonition that follows), ii. 21; 
Τὰ οἱ, yi. 21. Not unlike this is 1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i. 1 τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ 
148 Θεσσαλονικέων ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ καὶ κυρίῳ, etc. Likewise in 1 Tim. 
vi. 17 τοῖς πλουσίοις ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι 1 are to be connected. Cf. 
besides, Acts xxvi. 4; Rom. xvi. 38, 8,10; Eph. ii. 1δ ; Phil. 1. 1. 
b. When the primitive verb was construed with a particular 
preposition, or when the adjunct is half-implied in the noun (Held, 
Plut. Timol. p. 419; Krii. 103), as Eph. iii. 4 δύνασθε νοῆσαι τὴν 
σύνεσίν μου ἐν TO μυστηρίῳ (Josh. i. 7; 2 Chron. xxxiv.12; Esr. i. 
31) ef. Dan. i. 4 συνιέντες ἐν πάσῃ copia; Rom. vi. 4 συνετάφημεν 
αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον (vs. ὃ ἐβαπτίσθημεν εἰς τὸν 
θάνατον αὐτοῦν, Phil. i. 26 διὰ τῆς ἐμῆς παρουσίας πάλιν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. 2 
2 Cor. ix. 18 ἁπλότητι τῆς κοινωνίας εἰς αὐτοὺς καὶ εἰς πάντας, Col. 
124 i. 12 (Job xxx. 19) οἵ. Βδμν in loc.; Eph. iii. 18 é ταῖς θλίψεσί 
the. μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (cf. vs. 1), 2 Cor.i. 6; Col. i. 24. So Polyb. 3, 48, 
11 τὴν τῶν ὄχλων ἀλλοτριότητα πρὸς “Ῥωμαίους, D.S. 17, 10 τῆς 
᾿Αλεξάνδρου παρουσίας ἐπὶ τὰς Θήβας, Her. 5, 108 ἡ ἀγγελία περὶ 
τῶν Σαρδίων, Thue. 5, 20 ἡ ἐς βολὴ ἐς τὴν ᾿Αττικήν 2,52 ἡ συγκομιδὴ 
ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν εἰς τὸ ἄστυ 1, 18 ; Plutarch. Coriol. 24 ἡ τῶν πατρι- 
κίων δυςμένεια πρὸς τὸν δῆμον, and Pomp..58 αἱ παρακλήσεις ὑπὲρ 
Καίσαρος. From the LXX. compare Exod. xvi. 7 τὸν γογγυσμὸν 
ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ, which Thiersch considers as paene vitiosum ! 
Case a. is to be referred no doubt to the colloquial language, 
which, having the more expressive aid of the voice, scarcely em- 
ployed the Article anywhere; whereas the literary language, for 
the sake of precision, could less easily dispense with it. Yet from 
the literary language a few instances even of this omission of the 
Article may be produced; cf. Polyb. 5, 64, 6 διὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς 
δόξαν ἐκ τῆς ἀθλήσεως, Sext. Emp. hypot. 3, 26 ξητοῦμεν περὶ τοῦ 
τόπου πρὸς ἀκρίβειαν for τοῦ πρὸς ἀ., as appears from what precedes, 
Thuc. 6, 55 ὡς ὅτε βωμὸς σημαίνει καὶ ἡ στήλη περὶ τῆς τῶν τυράννων 


1 According to Paul’s view we are likewise probably to take 6 δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως 
together in the quotation from the O. T. in Rom. i. 17 and Gal. iii. 11. In the former 
passage he wishes to establish by the words of the prophet the proposition δικαιοσύνη 
θεοῦ ἐκ πίστεως etc., and not ἡ (wh ἐκ δικαιοσύνης. Cf. Rom. x. 6 ἡ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη. 
But in Heb. x. 38 ἐκ πίστεως must undoubtedly be joined to ζήσεται ; see Bleek. 

2 Accordingly, in Rom. v. 2 there would be no objection in tis respect to connecting 
τῇ πίστει (which however Lchm. and Tdf. have rejected) εἰς thy χάριν ταύτην. There 
are, however, other difficulties. 


8 20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, Ὁ. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 137 


ἀδικίας (where Bekker from eonjecture has inserted ἡ before περί), 
ef. Krii. Dion. p. 153 ; Poppo, Thuc. IIL 1. 234. 

In classifying such constructions, however, we must be cautious ;1 149 
many that seem to come under this head we shall find, on closer 130 
examination, to be different; cf. Ellendt, Arrian. al. I. 315. Τὰ οἱ, 

a) Sometimes, for instance, a slight transposition of the words 
may have ensued, as 1 Tim. i. 2 Τιμοθέῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει, 
where the words ἐν πίστει construed according to the sense with 
γνησίῳ would mean genuine in faith; ef. Xen. A. 4,3, 23 κατὰ τὰς 
προςηκούσας ὄχθας ἐπὶ τὸν ποταμόν, ie. κατὰ τὰς ἐπὶ τ. π΄. TPOSHK. 
ὄχθας. For several reasons, however, it is preferable to take ἐν 
πίστει there as an adjunct to the compound notion, —genwine child. 

On the other hand, in 1 Pet. i. 2 it may be that the qualifying 
clauses κατὰ πρόγνωσιν Ocod... εἰς ὑπακοὴν Kal ῥαντισμόν etc. 
should be joined to ἐκλεκτοῖς. 

b) Elsewhere the adjunct belongs as a closer limitation directly 
to the verb, as Col. i. 6 ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσατε καὶ ἐπέγνωτε τὴν 
χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ (see Bahr and Mey.), Rom. iii. 25 ὃν 
προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι (see Fr. 
and de Wette in 1.) ; viii. 2 ὁ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ 
"I. ἠλευθέρωσέ με ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου 
where it is evident, partly from the antithesis νόμος τοῦ θανάτου (to 
which νόμος τῆς ζωῆς correctly corresponds), and partly from vs. 3, 
that ἐν Χριστῷ must be connected with ἠλευθέρωσε, as Koppe has 
done; Phil. i. 14 τοὺς πλείονας τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐν κυρίῳ πεποιθότας 
τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου (cf. a similar construction in Gal. v. 10 πέποιθα 195 
eis ὑμᾶς ἐν κυρίῳ and 2 Thess. iii. 4), as ἐν κυρίῳ has a real meaning ‘th εἰ 
only when joined to πεποιθότας ; Jas. iii. 13 δειξάτω ἐκ τῆς καλῆς 
ἀναστροφῆς τὰ ἔργα αὑτοῦ ἐν πρᾳὕὔτητι σοφίας, where the words ἐν 
πρᾳὕτητι σοφίας are an explanatory adjunct to ἐκ τῆς καλῆς ἀνα- 
στροφῆς. Further, οἵ, Rom. ν. 8 ; 1 Cor. ii. 7; ix.18; Phil. {1.9 ; 

iv. 19, 21; Οὐ]. i. 9; Eph. ii. 7; iii. 12; 1 Thess. ii. 16; Philem. 
20; Heb. xiii. 20; Jno. xv. 11, see Liicke; 1 Jno. iv.17; Jude 21. 
Likewise in Acts xxii. 18 οὐ παραδέξονταί cov τὴν μαρτυρίαν περὶ 
ἐμοῦ may be translated: they will not receive concerning me thy 
testimony, i.e. in reference to me no testimony from thee; τὴν 


1 Harless on Eph. i. 15 and Mey. on Rom. iii. 25 etc., have taken the same view as 
the above. Fr. also, who in his letter to Tholuck, S. 35, had declared it a blunder to 
connect διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι, has stated (Rom. I. 195, 365) his altered 
opinion, and also in Rom. vi. 4 the combination διὰ rod βαπτίσματος eis τὸν θάνατον, 
which in p. 32 of his letter he had pronounced grammatically faulty, he has defended 
as alone admissible. 

18 





188 §20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, ἢ. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 


μαρτυρίαν τὴν περὶ ἐμοῦ would be thy testimony to be given, or given, 
jconcerning me. In Eph. v. 26 ἐν ῥήματι does not belong to τῷ 
λουτρῷ Tod ὕδατος, but the passage is probably to be arranged thus: 

ἵνα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ, καθαρίσας τῷ λ. τ. ὕδ., ἐν ῥήματι. The καθαρίζειν 

160 precedes the ἁγιώζειν and denotes something negative, as the latter 
denotes something positive ; see Riick. and Mey. In Heb. x. 10 it 
was not necessary to write dua τῆς προςφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος ... τῆς 
ἐφάπαξ ; the latter word may just as well be referred to ἡγιασμένοι; 

see Bleek. On Eph. ii. 15 and Col. ii. 14 see § 31, note 1, p. 220. 

In Eph. vi. 5 for rots κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα good Codd. have τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα 
κυρίοις, which Lehm. has adopted. 

3. An appellative in apposition to a proper name, 

131 ἃ. Usually has the Article, e.g. Acts xxv. 13 ᾿Αγρίππας ὁ 5 ace 
ith ed. Neds, Luke ix. 19 ᾿Ιωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν, Acts xii.1; xiii. 8; xxiii. 
24; xxvi. 9; 2 Cor. xi. 32; Matt. xxvii. 2, ete. In such a case 
the appellative always denotes a dignity, or the like, already known, 
and thus renders definite the proper name which may be common 
to many individuals. Agrippa the king, is properly that Agrippa 
who among those called Agrippa is king, etc. Cf. ὃ 18,6, p. 112 sq. 

b. On the other hand, in Acts x. 82 Σίμων βυρσεύς Simon a 
tanner (a certain Simon who was a.tauner), Luke ii. 36 “Avva 
προφῆτις Anna-a prophetess, viii. 3 ᾿Ιωάννα, γυνὴ Χουζᾶ, ἐπιτρόπου 
Ἡρώδου, Acts xx. 4 Γάϊος Δερβαῖος Gaius of Derbe (not the already 
known Derbean), x. 22. In all these instances a predicate in 
apposition is simply annexed, without any precise intention of 
distinguishing the person from others of the same name. Likewise 
in Luke iii. 1 ἐν ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος 
must strictly be translated : of Tiberius as emperor. Gersd. p. 167 
is incorrect. In Acts vii. 10 ἐναντίον Φαραὼ βασιλέως Αὐγύπτου 
does not mean: before Pharaoh, the (known or then) king of Egypt; 
but before Pharaoh king of Egypt, i.e. before Pharaoh who was 
king of Egypt. Cf. Plutarch. parallel. 15 Βρέννος Γαλατῶν Ba- 
σιλεύς, c. 80 ᾿Ατεπόμαρος Γάλλων βασιλεύς, etc. 

With other words in apposition, also, the use or the omission of 
the Article is determined by the general rule; and it is strange 
that any one should assert, in absolute terms, that a word in ap- 

49¢ position never has the Article. Your father, an unlearned man, 

6th eb would be expressed, to be sure, even in Greek without the Article ; 
but in the expression, your father, the field-marshal, the Article 
stands with entire propriety. Grammatically this applies to Jno. 

151 viii. 44. In general, the use of the Article may be regarded as 
more common than its omission (Rost 439). 


§ 20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 139 


The Article may be omitted, in accordance with the principles 
explained in § 19, even when the intention is to express a charac- 
teristic predicate distinctive of the particular individual ; as, Rom. 
i. T ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν, 1 Tim. i. 1 κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν θεοῦ σωτῆρος 
ἡμῶν, 1 Pet. v. 8 ὁ ἀντίδικος ὑμῶν διάβολος. So also if the appel- 
lative predicate precedes the proper name, as κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός 
2 Cor. i. 2; Gal. i. 3; Phil. iii. 20, etc. ; although in the latter 
case the Article is used for the most part, as 1 Cor. xi. 23 ὁ κύριος 
᾿Ιησοῦς, and 2 Tim. i. 10 τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ, Tit. ili. 4; 
1 Thess. iii. 11; Philem. 5, etc. 

4. A limiting attributive joined to-an anarthrous noun (appel- 
lative), properly dispenses with the Article; as, Matt. vii. 11 δόματα 
ἀγαθά, Jno. ix. 1 εἶδεν. ἄνθρωπον τυφλὸν ἐκ γενετῆς, [Matt. ii. 1 
μάγοι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν oriental magi], 1 Tim. iv. 3 ἃ ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν 
εἰς μετάληψιν μετὰ εὐχαριστίας, i. 5 ἀγάπη ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας, Tit. 
i. 6 τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα, Rom. 
xiv. 17 δικαιοσύνη καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ χαρὰ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, cf. Plat. 


10Ρ.2,818 α.“Ἥρας δὲ δεσμοὺς ὑπὸ υἱέος καὶ ᾿Ηφαίστου ῥίψεις 132 
ὑπὸ πατρός, μέλλοντος τῇ μητρὶ τυπτομένῃ ἀμύνειν, καὶ θεομαχίας, Tih αἱ. 


ὅσας “Ὅμηρος πεποίηκεν, οὐ παραδεκτέον εἰς τὴν πόλιν, Theophr. ch. 
29 ἔστι δὲ ἡ κακολογία ἀγὼν τῆς ψυχῆς εἰς τὸ χεῖρον ἐν λόγοις, 
Aelian. anim. 11, 15 ἔοικα λέξειν ἐλέφαντος ὀργὴν εἰς γάμον ἀδικου- 
μένου. Cf. Stallb. Plat. rep. 1. 91, 110, 152; Krii. 101. 

Not unfrequently, however, it happens that such attributives are 
joined to an anarthrous noun by means of the Article; and that 
not merely when the noun belongs to the class specified in § 19,1 
(1 Pet.i. 21), but also in other cases, though never without adequate 
ground; e.g. 1 Pet. i. T τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως πολυτιμότερον 
χρυσίου, τοῦ ἀπολλυμένου, Which is to be resolved: more precious 
than gold (that gold) which is perishable, Acts xxvi. 18 πίστει τῇ 
εἰς ἐμέ by faith, namely, the faith in me, 2 Tim. i. 18 ἐν ἀγάπῃ τῇ 
ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, Tit. iii. 5 οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, Rom. 
ii. 14 ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα gentiles that have not the law, see 
Fr. in 1. (compare on the other hand, 1 Thess. iv. 5); ix. 30; Gal. 
111. 21 (compare here Liban. oratt. p. 201 b.), Heb. vi. 7; Phil. iii. 9. 

In such passages, the noun is first presented to the mind as 


1.80 κλέπτης ἐν νυκτί might signify a nocturnal thief; but in 1 Thess. v. 2 with ὡς 
κλέπτης ἐν νυκτί an ἔρχεται is to be supplied from the following clause : that the day of 
the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night (cometh). Even adverbs are joined without 
the article — that is to say, prefixed —to such anarthrous nouns, as μάλα χειμών Xen. 
Hell. 5, 4, 14 @ severe winter. See Krii. in Jahn’s Jahrb. 1838, I. 57. 


152 


~hS ἈΠῪ g e aee 


140 § 21. THE PRONOUNS IN GENERAL, 


127 indefinite, and is then rendered definite by the attributive, whose 
oe, import receives, by this very construction, special prominence. 
See further, Acts x.41; xix.11,17; xxvi. 22; Phil. i. 11; iii, 

6; 1 Tim. i. 4; iii. 18; iv. 8; 2 Tim.i. 14; ii. 10; Heb. ix. 2; 
2Jno.7; Jude 4; Jas. i. 25; iv. 14; 1 Pet.v.1. Cf. Her. 2,114 
és γῆν τὴν σήν, Xen. M. 2, 1, 82 ἀνθρώποις τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς men, that 
is the good, Hiero 3, 8 ὑπὸ γυναικῶν τῶν ἑαυτῶν, Mem. 1, 7, 5; 
4, 5,11; Dion. H. IV. 2219, 4 εὐνοίᾳ τῇ πρὸς αὐτόν, 2221, 5 ὁπλισμὸς 
ὁ τοῖς τηλικούτοις πρέπων, Aclian. anim. 3, 23 οὐδὲ ἐπὶ κέρδει TO 
μεγίστῳ, 7,27; Her. 5,18; 6,104; Plato, rep. 8, δ4 ἃ. ; legg. 
8, 849b.; Demosth. Neaer. 517 b.; Theophr. ch. 15; Schneid. 
Isocr. Paneg. c. 24; Arrian. Ind. 84,1; Xen. Ephes. 2,5; 4, 3; 
Heliod. 7,2; 8,5; Strabo 7,302; Lucian. asin. 25, 44; scyth. 1; 
Philostr. Apoll. 7, 30; οἵ. Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 409; Herm. 
Lucian. conscr. hist. p. 106; Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. 11. 241; Schoem. 
Plutarch. Cleom. p. 226; Mdv. S. 14. 
_ In Phil. ii. 9 the text. rec. has ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα a name that is 


above every name. Yet good Codd. [Sin. also] have the Article before 
ὄνομα : the name (which he now enjoys), which etc., the (known) dignity, 


which etc. 
133 CHAPTER II. 
Tth ed. 
153 PRONOUNS. 


821, THE PRONOUNS IN GENERAL. 


1. In the use of the Pronouns the language of the N. T. deviates 
from the earlier prose of the Greeks, or even from Greek usage 
in general, only in these two particulars: First, it multiplies the 
personal and demonstrative pronouns for the sake of greater 
perspicuity (or emphasis) ὃ 22sqq. Secondly, it neglects— more 
frequently than do the later Greeks even— many forms which 
ranked rather among the luxuries of the language, or were not 
felt by Orientals to be necessary (such as the correlatives ὅςτις, 
ὁπόσος, ὁποῖος, πηλίκος in indirect discourse); whereas those 
modes of expression by which the Greek aimed at conciseness 
(e.g. attraction), have become very frequent in the N. T. writers 


1 This appears most plainly in sentences like Mark xv. 41 ἄλλαι πολλαὶ αἱ συναναβᾶσαι 
αὐτῷ eis Ἱεροσόλυμα. 


§ 21. THE PRONOUNS IN GENERAL, 141 


§ 24. On the other hand it has been erroneously asserted that 
αὐτός in the N. T. is equivalent to the unemphatic he. Further, 
the Hebraistic distribution of οὐδείς into οὐ... mas occurs almost 
exclusively in aphoristic propositions or set phrases. 

2. It isa peculiarity common to the Pronouns, whether personal, 
demonstrative, or relative, that they not unfrequently take a dif- 
ferent gender from that of the nouns to which they refer, regard 
being had to the meaning of the nouns, not to their grammatical sex 128 
(constructio ad sensum). This happens especially when an animate Mth εἰ, 
object is denoted by a neuter substantive or a feminine abstract ; 
the Pronoun is then made to agree grammatically with the sex of 
the object in question, either masc. or fem.; as, Matt. xxviii. 19 
μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτούς, Rev. xix. 15 
(ef. Exod. xxiii. 27; Deut. iv. 21; xviii. 14, ete.) Rom. ii.14; Acts 
xv. 17; xxvi. 17; Gal. iv. 19 rexvia μου, ods πάλιν ὠδίνω, 2 Jno. 1 
(similarly Eurip. Suppl. 12 ἑπτὰ γενναίων τέκνων, obs, Aristoph. 
Plut. 292), Jno. vi. 9 ἔστε παιδάριον ἕν ὧδε, ὃς ἔχει, as the majority 154 
of better Codd. have for the common reading 6, Mark vy. 41 (Esth. 

ii. 9) ; Col. ii. 15 τὰς ἀρχὰς «. τ. ἐξουσίας ... θριαμβεύσας αὐτούς, 
Col. ii. 19 τὴν κεφαλὴν (Xpictov), ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα, etc. (Jno. 
xv. 26 does not come under this head, as πνεῦμα is merely in 
apposition). For instances from Greek authors, see Mtth. 976 ; 
Wurm, Dinarch. 81 sq. ; Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 368; ef. Draken- 
borch, Liv. 29,12. There are variants in Rev. iii. 4; xiii. 14, ete. 

Under this head comes also Rev. xvii. 16 καὶ τὰ δέκα κέρατα ἃ εἶδες καὶ 184 
τὸ θηρίον, οὗτοι μισήσουσι, where, agreeably to the symbolical language ἸῺ οἱ 
of prophecy, κέρατα and θηρίον are to be understood as denoting persons. 


3. In the same way, these Pronouns when referring to a Singular 
noun are put in the Plural, if that noun has a collective signifi- 
cation, or is an abstract used for the concrete ; as, Matt. i. 21 rov+- 
λαὸν... αὐτῶν, xiv. 14; Phil. ii. 15 γενεά, ἐν οἷς, 3Jn0.9 ἡ ἐκκλησία 

«αὐτῶν, Eph. v.12 σκότος (ἐσκοτισμένοι) ὑπ’ αὐτῶν, Mark 
ὃν 46 .... τὸν ὄχλον, καὶ ἀποταξάμενος αὐτοῖς, Ino. xv. 6, see 
Licke in loc.; Luke vi. 17, cf. § 22, 8 (but Acts xxii. 5 does not 
belong here) ; cf. Soph. Trach. 545; Thue. 6, 91; 1, 186; Plat. 
Tim. 24 Ὁ. and Phaedr. 260 ἃ. ; Xen. Oyr. 6, 3,4; Diod. S. 18, 6. 
This is very frequent in the Sept., Isa. Ixv. 1; Exod. xxxii. 11, 33; 
Deut. xxi. 8; 1 Sam. xiv. 34; ef. Judith ii. 3; iv. 8; Ecclus. xvi.8; 
Wisd. v. 8, 7.1 In Phil. iii. 20 ἐν οὐρανοῖς, ἐξ οὗ, it was supposed 


1In this way some expositors (e.g. Reiche) explain also Rom. vi. 21 τίνα καρπὸν εἴχετε 


τότε ἐφ᾽ οἷς (that is, καρποῖς) viv ἐπαισχύνεσθε. See, however, § 23, 2, p. 158. 





142 821. THE PRONOUNS IN GENERAL. 


that the opposite construction occurs, that is, a Sing. pronoun re- 
ferring to a Plural noun (Bhdy. 295); but ἐξ οὗ has become in 
usage nothing more than an adverb, exactly equivalent in sense to 
unde. On the other hand, in 2 Jno. 7 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος, ete., 
appears a transition from the Plural μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες, etc. to the 
collective Singular. 


Different from this is Acts xv. 36 κατὰ πᾶσαν πόλιν ἐν αἷς, where πᾶσα 
πόλις of itself (exclusively of the inhabitants), implies a plurality (πᾶσαι 
πόλεις) cf. Poppo, Thue. I. 92, and 2 Pet. iii. 1 ταύτην ἤδη δευτέραν ὑμῖν 
γράφω ἐπιστολήν, ἐν αἷς, etc., where δύο is implied in δευτέραν. I do not 
know of an exact parallel, but the opposite construction πάντες ὅςτις; 
which occurs not unfrequently, may be compared with it (Rost 468). 


129 Note 1. According to some expositors (e.g. Kiihnol) the pronoun now 
6th ed. and then refers to a noun not expressed till afterwards ; as, Matt. xvii. 18 
155 ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ, namely τῷ δαιμονίῳ, Acts xii. 21 ἐδημηγόρει πρὸς αὐτούς, cf. 


vs. 22 ὁ δῆμος (Fr. Conject. I. p. 18 5α.), see Gesen. Lg. 5. 740; Bornem. 
Xen. conviv. p. 210. But neither of these two passages proves anything 
in respect to N. T. usage. In the former, αὐτῷ refers to the demoniac 
himself, since in the Gospels, as is well known, the person possessed and 
the demon possessing him are often put for each other — (against which it 
is of no weight that Mark ix. 25 has ἐπετίμησε τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ) ; 
in the latter passage, αὐτούς refers to the Tyrians and Sidonians (deputies), 
mentioned in verse 20, as even Kiihnél has acknowledged; cf. Georgi, 
Vind. p. 208 sq. The verb δημηγορεῖν does not interfere with this, as the 
king’s statement was made in a full assembly of the people. 

Note 2. The Neut. of the interrogative pronoun τές, and of the demon- 
strative οὗτος (αὐτός), are often employed adverbially, to denote wherefore 


135 (why) therefore. The former is so used also in Latin and German: guéd 


th ed 


‘cunctaris? was zdgerst du? and originally these pronouns were considered 
as real Accusatives (Hm. Vig. 882; Bhdy. 130). With regard to the 
strengthened demonstrative αὐτὸ τοῦτο compare 2 Pet.i.5 καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτε 
σπουδὴν πᾶσαν παρειςενέγκαντες (Xen. Anab. 1, 9, 21; Plat. Protag. 310 6 
αὐτὰ ταῦτα νῦν ἥκω παρά σε), Mtth. 1041 ; Ast. Plat. legg. pp. 163, 169, 
214. Gal. ii. 10 does not belong here, see § 22, 4. As to τί see passages 
according to their various relations in Wahl, clav. 483. The Greeks use 
also 6 and ἅ for δ 6 and δ ἅ (Mtth. 1062); but Mey. is wrong in trans 
ferring to Acts xxvi. 16 the more poetic use of ἅ (see ὃ 39, note 1) , 
whereas he himself on Gal. ii. 10 rejects on this very ground the proposal 
of Schott to take ὅ for δ᾽ 6! Likewise the distributive τοῦτο μὲν... τοῦτο 
δέ partly ... partly Heb. x. 88 is used adverbially (Her. 1, 30; 8, 132; 
Lucian. Nigr. 16) ; cf. Wetsten. IT. 423; Mtth. 740. (On 1 Cor. vi. 11 
ταῦτά τινες ἦτε, Where two constructions are blended, see ὃ 23, 5.) 

[Note 3. Τί is used not as an interrogative, but as an exclamatory des- 


———— ee ee 





aa 





§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 143 


ignation of degree, in Matt. vii. 14 τί στενή how strait is the gate! Luke 
xii. 49 τί θέλω how would I (how much I wish!). This use is unknown 
to the classics, but is found in the Sept., e.g. 2 Sam. vi. 20, where the 
Hebrew #79 is rendered in this way. ] 


8 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 


1. The personal pronouns, in accordance with Hebrew circum- 
stantiality, are far more frequently employed in the Greek of the 
N. T. than in the classics.t Particularly, 

Αὐτοῦ, σοῦ, etc., with substantives (especially in connection 156 
with the Middle Voice § 38, 2), as Jno. ii. 12; Luke vi. 20; vii. 50; 

xi. 84: xxiv.50; Matt. vi. 17; xv. 2; Mark xii. 30; 1 Pet. iii. 11; 
Rom. ix. 17; xvi. 7; Acts xxv. 21, etc. (cf. 1 Macc. i. 6; Josh. 
xxiii. 2; xxiv. 1; Neh. ix. 34) ; 

The subject Acc. with the Inf., as Luke x. 35 ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ ἐπανέρ- 130 
χεσθαί με ἀποδώσω, Jno. ii. 24; Heb. vii. 24; Acts i. 3; bth ed 

Oblique cases with a participle and at the same time with the 
principal verb, as Mark x. 16 ἐναγκαλισάμενος αὐτὰ κατευλόγει τιθεὶς 
τὰς χεῖρας ἐπ᾽ αὐτά, ix. 28; Acts vii. 21; Luke xvi. 2; 2 Pet. iii. 16; 

(cf. below,no.4.) So especially in the Apocalypse. On the other 
hand, in Matt. xxii. 37 and Rev. ix. 21 the repetition of the pronoun 
is probably to be charged to the account of the rhythm. 

In connection with this tendency to multiply pronouns, only a 
few passages occur where the pronoun is wanting when it might 
have been expected, e.g. Acts xiii. 3 καὶ ἐπιθέντες τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῖς 136 
ἀπέλυσαν (αὐτούς). Mark vi. 5; Eph. v. 11; Phil. i. 6; 2 Thess. ™*% 
iii. 12; Heb. iv. 15; xiii. 17; 1 Tim. vi. 2; Jno. x. 29; Luke xiv. 4 
(ef. Demosth. Conon. T28b. ἐμοὶ περιπεσόντες ... €&éSucav).2 On 
the other hand, in Matt. xxi. 7 the better reading is ἐπεκάθισεν, 
and in 1 Cor. x. 9 πειράζειν may be taken absolutely ; in 2 Tim. 

ii. 11 σὺν αὐτῷ would be heavy in an aphoristic saying. In 1 Pet. 
ii. 11 ὑμᾶς, which appears in the MSS. now after παρακαλῶ now 
after ἀπέχεσθαι, is certainly not genuine. In acclamations, such 
as Matt. xxvii. 22 σταυρωθήτω, the omission of the pronoun is very 
natural (in German the Inf. would likewise be used without a 


1In the language of Homer, however, the possessive pronoun ὅς is quite parallel. 
Later (and sometimes earlier) prose authors use also αὐτός thus abundanter. Schaef. ind. 
Aesop. p. 124; Schoem. ad Isaeum, p. 382. 

2 In Latin compare Sallust, Jug. 54, 1 universos in concione laudat atque agit gratias 
(iis), Οἷς. Orat. 1, 15 si modo erunt ad eum delata et tradita (ei), Liv. 1, 11 and 20. 
Cf. Kritz on the first passage. 


157 





144 § 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 


pronoun : kreuzigen!); yet the parallel passage Mark xv. 13 has 
σταύρωσον αὐτόν. (In Greek authors the omission of the Pro- 
noun is carried much further; see Jacobs, Anthol. pal. III. 294 ; 
Bremi, Lys. p. 50; Schaef. Demosth. 1V.78, 157, 232; V. 556, 567.) 

In Eph. iii. 18 τί τὸ πλάτος, etc., the addition of αὐτῆς (ἀγάπης) would 
hardly help the passage ; see Mey. Many (e.g. Kiihnél) quite erroneously 
hold the pronoun to be redundant in Matt. xxi. 41 κακοὺς κακῶς ἀπολέσει 
αὐτούς. Without αὐτούς the statement would be altogether general. 


Αὐτούς is required to connect it with the case in hand,— with the γεωργοῖς 
spoken of. 


2. Instead of the personal pronouns the nouns themselves are 
sometimes employed : — either from the writer’s inadvertence, or 
with a view to relieve the reader’s uncertainty when more than 
one reference of the pronoun is possible, or because the noun 
stands at a great distance; as, Jno. iii. 23f.; x. 41; Luke iii. 19; 
Kph. iv. 12; οἵ, 1 Kings ix. 1; xii. 1 (Xen. Eph. 2,13; Thue. 
6,105; D.S. exe. Vat. p. 29); Ellendt, Arrian. I. 55. 

But in Jno. iv. 1 ᾿Ιησοῦς is repeated because the apostle wishes 
to quote the express words which the Pharisees had heard ; ef. 
1 Cor. xi. 25. Further, those passages in Christ’s discourses must 
not be referred to this head, in which, instead of the pronoun, the 
name of a person or of an office is repeated for the sake of emphasis; 
as, Mark ix. 41 ἐν ὀνόματι ὅτι Χριστοῦ ἐστε, Luke xii. 8 πᾶς ὃς ἂν 
ὁμολογήσῃ ἐν ἐμοὶ .... καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁμολογήσει ἐν αὐτῷ, 
Jno. vi. 40; 1 Cor. i. 8,21; 1 Jno. v. 6; Col. ii. 11, and often. 
Cf. Plat. Euthyphr. p. 5e.; Aeschyl. Prom. vinct. 312; Cic. fam. 
2,4. In all these instances the pronoun would be out of place, 


131 and would mar the rhetorical effect. Least of all does the familiar 


6th ed. 


appellation ὁ vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, under which Jesus speaks of 
himself in the Synoptic Gospels as of a third person, stand for ἐγώ. 

At other times the repetition of the noun is intended to denote 
an emphatic antithesis ; as, Jno. ix. 5 ὅταν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ὦ, φῶς εἰμι 


187 τοῦ κόσμου, xii. 47 οὐκ ἦλθον ἵνα κρίνω τὸν κόσμον ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα 
Khel. σώσω τὸν κόσμον (Xen. An. 8, 2, 23 of βασιλέως ἄκοντος ἐν 


τῇ βασιλέως χώρᾳ... οἰκοῦσι), Arrian. Al. 2, 18, 2; Κνὰ. 114 
(Liv. 1, 10,1; 6, 2,9; 38, 56,3). Accordingly, even in the fol- 
lowing passages no one will regard the repetition of the noun as © 
idle: Rom. v. 12 δ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον 
εἰςῆλθε, καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος, Jno. x. 29 ὁ πατήρ 
μου, ὃς δέδωκέ μοι, μείζων πάντων ἐστί" καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται ἁρπάζειν 
ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ πατρός μου. Cf. besides, Actsiii.16. See § 65: 


§ 22, PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 145 





In Acts x. 7 the better Codd. have the personal pronoun (see Kiihnél 
in loc.) and τῷ Κορνηλίῳ is evidently a gloss. The passages which Bornem. 
Xen. Anab. p. 190 quotes from Greek authors are not all to the point, nor 
is the reading in all of them fully established. 

The assertion that it is especially characteristic of Mark to repeat the 
noun instead of the pronoun αὐτός or ἐκεῖνος (Schulze in Keil’s Analect. 
If. 11. 112) is not entirely correct. In Mark ii. 18 the nouns were indis- 
pensable, — (the writer could not put into the mouth of the inquirers an 
ἐκεῖνοι referring to his, the historian’s, words) ; in vi. 41, and also in xiv. 67, 
the pronouns would have been quite unsuitable ; in ii. 27 the nouns were 
employed for the sake of antithesis ; in i. 34; iii. 24; v. 9; x. 46 we find 
circumstantiality (as often in Cxsar), and not strictly the use of nouns for 
pronouns. Compare Ellendt, as above. 


3. The pronoun avrtos! is frequently so employed, through the 
negligence of the writer, that in the propositions immediately pre- 
ceding there is no substantive expressed to which it can be directly 158 
referred. 

Such cases may be reduced to four classes : 

1) Αὐτός in the Plur. very frequently refers to a collective noun, — 
particularly the name of a place or country (ef. ὃ 21, 3), which 
includes the idea of the inhabitants; as, Matt. iv. 23 ἐν ταῖς συνα- 
γωγαῖς αὐτῶν, that is Γαλιλαίων (from ὅλην τὴν Tadiralav), ix. 35 
(Luke iv. 15); Matt. xi. 1; 1 Thess. i. 9 cf. vs. 8; Acts viii. 5; 
xx. 2; 2 Cor. ii. 12,13 ἐλθὼν eis τὴν Τρωάδα... ἀποταξάμενος 
αὐτοῖς, v.19 θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ, μὴ 
λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς τὰ παραπτώματα, Jno. xvii. 2. This usage is 
common enough in Greek authors, ef. Thue. 1, 27, 136; Lucian. 
Tim. 9; dial. mort. 12,4; Dion. H. IV. 2117; Jacob, Lucian. 
Toxar. p. 59.? 

Akin to this is, 2) the use of αὐτός in reference to an abstract 132 
noun to be deduced from a preceding concrete, or vice versé ; as, Sih ed. 
| Jno. viii. 44 ψεύστης ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ (wWevOSous), see Liicke 138 
| in loc.,? Rom. ii. 26 ἐὰν ἡ ἀκροβυστία τὰ δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου ae 
φυλάσσῃ, οὐχὶ ἡ ἀκροβυστία αὐτοῦ (of such an ἀκρόβυστοςν εἰς 
| περιτομὴν λογισθήσεται ; cf. Theodoret. I. 914 τοῦτο τῆς ἀποστο- 


1 Compare, in general, Hm. diss, de pronom. ἀυτός in the Acta Seminar. philol. Lips. 
Vol. I. 42 sqq. and his Opuse. I. 308 sqq. ; 

2 Simpler is the reference of αὐτός in the Plur. to an abstract signifying in itself 
nothing more than a community of individuals, as ἐκκλησία. On this see § 21,3. On 
Col. iv. 15 according to the reading αὐτῶν, see cy. in log. ; 

® The other explanation : father of the liar, appears ‘neither grammatically simpler 
nor preferable in meaning, Indeed, father of falsehood is a more comprehensive idea, 
and John has a predilection for abstract expressions, 

19 


Se 


ΠΣ 


146 § 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 


λικῆς χάριτος ἴδιον" αὐτοῖς yap (ἀποστόλοις) etc.’ In Luke 
xxiii. 51 αὐτῶν refers to the Sanhedrim, implied in the predicate 
βουλευτής verse 50. Cf. Jonah i. 3 εὗρε πλοῖον βαδίζον εἰς Θαρσίς 
... καὶ ἀνέβη εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦ πλεῦσαι μετ᾽ αὐτῶν, etc., see above, 
No. 2. Sallust. Cat. 17, 7 simul confisum, si coniuratio valuisset, 
facile apud illos (that is, coniuratos) principem se fore. Similar 
to this passage from Luke would be Matt. viii. 4 (Mark i. 44; 
Luke v. 14) eis μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς, if the pronoun referred to 
the foregoing ἱερεῖ, and thus αὐτοῖς agreed with the Plur. ἱερεῦσι 
understood ; but, if the cured man has already received from the 
priests permission to present the purification-offering prescribed 
by the law, the priests would need no further μαρτύριον of his 
being cleansed. See 4) below. 

159 8) Αὐτός sometimes refers to something implied in a preceding 
word, or even in the verb of the sentence; as, 1 Pet. iii. 14 τὸν δὲ 
φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε, that is τῶν κακούντων ὑμᾶς, or those 
from whom you must suffer (πάσχειν), see Hm. Vig. 714;2 Eph. 
v. 12 τὰ κρυφῆ γινόμενα ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν, that is τῶν τὰ ἔργα τοῦ σκότους 
ποιούντων verse 11; Acts χ. 10. Cf. Aristoph. Plut. 566; Thue. 
1, 22, 1 and Poppo, in loc. ; Heinichen, ind. ad Euseb. 111. 539, 
On Acts xii. 21 see § 21, note 1, p. 142. 

4) «Αὐτός sometimes has no antecedent grammatically implied 
in what precedes, but must be referred to some subject assumed 
to be known; as, Lukei. 17 αὐτὸς προελεύσεται αὐτοῦ (i.e. before 
the Messiah), see Kiihnél in loc. — (αὐτός of an individual recog- 
nized in a certain circle as head or leader, as in αὐτὸς ἔφα ; so of 
Christ in 1 Jno. ii. 12; 2Jno.6; 2 Pet. iii. 4). In Luke v.17 
εἰς τὸ ἰᾶσθαι αὐτούς, the pronoun expresses the general notion 
the sick, those who required healing (among the persons present 
in the synagogue); the pronoun cannot be referred to verse 15 
(though this is done even by Bengel). On the other hand, αὐτῶν 
in Acts iv. 5 refers to the Jews, among whom the events occurred 
(in verse 1, moreover, their priests et al. are mentioned; and 
several times Aads in the same verse and sequel has pointed to 

139 the Jews). In Matt. xii. 9 the pronoun refers to those (Galileans) 

tthe. among whom Jesus was at the time; in Heb. iv. 8; viii. 8; 


1 With the relative compare Testam. patr. p. 608 ἀπεκάλυψα τῇ Xavavirid: Βησουέ, οἷς 
(Χαναναίοις) εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς μὴ ἀποκαλύψαι. Compare also the passage of an ancient poet 
in Οἷς. orat. 2, 46, 193: neque paternum adspectum es veritus, quem (patrem) actate 
exacta indigem Liberum lacerasti, and Gell. 2, 30, 6. 

2 Otherwise in Epiphan. 11. 368 a. edgal μοι, πάτερ, ὅπως ὑγιαίνω" . .. πίστευε, τέκνον, 
τῷ ἐσταυρωμένῳ, καὶ ἕξεις ταύτην (ὑγείαν). 


τ er ele 











8 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 147 


xi. 28 it refers to the Israelites, suggested to the reader by the 
antecedent particulars. The above-mentioned εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς 
Matt. viii. 4 comes under this head); those meant by αὐτοῖς are 
the Jews (the public, the community among whom the precepts 
of Moses, ὃ προςέταξε Μωῦσῆς, are recognized). In Jno. xx. 15 
αὐτόν presupposes that the inquirer knew who was meant, inas- 
much as it was thought he had taken him away; or Mary in 
answering, engrossed with the thought of the Lord, attributes to 
the inquirer her own impressions. Cf. besides, Poppo, Xen. Cyr. 
8, 1, 81; 5, 4,42; Thue. III. 1.184; Lehmann, Lucian. 11. 325; 
IV. 429; Stallb. Plat. rep. 11. 286, and, generally, van Hengel, 
annotat. p. 195 sqq. 


In Luke xviii. 34 αὐτοί refers to τοὺς δώδεκα and αὐτούς in verse 31 
(what intervenes being a statement of our Lord’s). So also in Heb. iv. 13 
αὐτοῦ relates to τοῦ θεοῦ in 12; and αὐτῆς in Luke xxi. 21 to Ἱερουσαλήμ 
in 20. Lastly, in 2 Cor. vi. 17 ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν, in a somewhat transformed 
quotation from the Old Test., refers to ἄπιστοι in verse 14; and in Rom. 
x. 18 αὐτῶν suggests to every reader the preachers, who were also men- 
tioned concretely in 15. On Acts xxvii. 14, where some have referred 
αὐτῆς to the ship, see Kiihnol in loc. In Luke ii. 22 αὐτῶν points to mother 
and child (Mary and Jesus). Expositors are not agreed whether in Heb. 
xii. 17 αὐτήν refers to μετάνοιαν or to εὐλογίαν ; from the correlation be- 
tween εὑρίσκειν and ἐκζητεῖν, however, the former reference is the more 
probable. In Matt. iii. 16 αὐτῷ and ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν relate unquestionably to Jesus. 

A slight inadvertence of another sort appears in Matt. xii. 15; xix. 2 
ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ ὄχλοι πολλοὶ καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτοὺς πάντας. Here the 
pronoun grammatically refers to ὄχλοι, but logically this reference can be 
only a loose one: he healed them, that is the sick in the crowds, collectively 
(xiv. 14 ἐθεράπευσε τοὺς ἀῤῥώστους αὐτῶν). Compare also Luke vy. 17. 

According to some expositors the demonstrative also is, in a similar way, 
construed ad sensum in 2 Cor. v. 2. After ἐν τούτῳ they supply σώματι, 
as being implied in ἡ ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους. But it is much 
simpler to supply σκήνει, from verse 4. That the Greeks, however, did 
employ the demonstrative as well as αὐτός with a want of precision in the 
reference is well known, cf. Miitzner, Antiph. p. 200. In fact, Acts x. 10 
would be an instance of this, if the reading ἐκείνων for αὐτῶν were correct. 


4, A repetition of this pronoun (adds), and also of the other 
personal pronouns, occurs, 

a. When subjoined for the sake of perspicuity, in sentences 
where the principal noun is followed by a number of other words ; 
as, Mark v. 2 ἐξελθόντι αὐτῷ ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου εὐθέως ἀπήντησεν αὐτῷ, 
ix. 28; Matt. ἵν. 16 ; v. 40; νἱῖ]. 1; xxvi. 71; Acts vii. 21; Jas. 


133 
6th ed, 


160 


148 § 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 


iv. 17; Rev. vi.4; Col. ii 13 καὶ ὑμᾶς νεκροὺς ὄντας ἐν τοῖς παρα- 


/ \ Ps ae fol a a 
140 πτώμασιν καὶ τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν συνεζωοποίησεν ὑμᾶς, 


7th ed. 


etc. Phil.i. 7. In the majority of these passages a participial con- 
struction, equivalent to an independent clause, precedes ; in this 
same case even the Greek authors often add the pronoun, Paus. 
8, 38,5; Herod. 3,10,6. Further, cf. Plat. Apol. 40 ἃ. ; symp. ec. 


134 21; Xen. C. 1, 3,15, and Oec. 10,4; Paus. 2, 8, 8 ; Arrian. Epict. 


θ ed. 


161 


3,1; also Cic. Catil. 2,12, 27; Liv. 1, 2; Sall. Catil. 40,1; Hm. 
Soph. Trach. p. 54; Schwarz, Comment. p. 217. The pronoun is 
used for the sake of emphasis in Jno. xviii. 11 τὸ ποτήριον ὃ δέδωκέν 
μοι ὁ πατήρ, ov μὴ πίω αὐτό; Matt. vi. 4; 1 Pet. v. 10 (Acts ii. 23); 
Rev. xxi. 6. (After a case absolute, the pronoun, in the case 
required by the verb, is introduced almost indispensably ; as, Rev. 
111. 12 ὁ νικῶν, ποιήσω αὐτόν, Jno. xv. 2; Matt. xii. 36; Acts vii. 40, 
ef. Plat. Theaet. 173 d.; Ael. anim. 5, 84 ; 1, 48 a.) 

b. This redundancy occurs more frequently in relative clauses, 
as Mark vii. 25 γυνή, ἧς εἶχε τὸ θυγάτριον αὐτῆς πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον, 
i. 7; Rey. vii. 2 οἷς ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἀδικῆσαι τὴν γῆν, etc., iii. 8 ; 
vii. 9; xiii. 8; xx. 8; similar to which is Mark xiii. 19 θλῖψις, ofa 
ov γέγονε τοιαύτη am ἀρχῆς κτίσεως. So also with a relative 


\ adverb, as Rey. xii. 6, 14 ὅπου ἔχει ἐκεῖ τόπον ete. 


In the Sept. (in accordance with the Hebrew idiom, see Gesen. 
Lg. 745), such usage is far more frequent, as Exod. iv. 17; Lev. 
xi. 82, 34; xiii. 52; xv. 4,9, 17, 20, 24, 26; xvi. 9, 32; xviii. 5; 
Num. xvii. 5; Deut. xi. 25; Josh. iii. 4; xxii. 19; Judg. xviii. 5, 6; 
Ruth i. 7; iii. 2, 4; 1 Kings xi. 84; xiii. 10, 25, 31; 2 Kings 
xix. 4; Baruch ii. 4; iii. 8; Neh. viii. 12; ix. 19; Isa. i. 21; Joel 
iii. 7; Ps. xxxix. 5; Judith v. 19; vii. 10; x. 2; xvi. 33 8) Esr, 
111. 5; iv.54; vi. 32, etc.; see Thiersch, de Pentat. alex. p. 126sq. 

Even in Greek prose, however, αὐτός (Géttling, Callim. p.19sq.; 
Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 550), or a demonstrative, is sometimes super- 
added in a relative clause: Xen. C.1, 4,19; D.S.1,97; 17, 35; 
Paus. 2,4, 7; Soph. Philoct. 316 (ef. in Latin Cic. fam. 4, 3; 
Acad. 2,25; Philipp. 2,8). Yet the demonstrative could very 
seldom be found so closely connected with the relative as in most 
of the preceding passages (which are almost all furnished by a 
style that has a Hebraistic tinge).1 See,further, Hm. Soph. Philoct. 
Ρ. 58; Ve. Fritzsche, Quaest. Lucian. p. 109 sq. 


In Acts iii. 13 the writer drops the relative structure in the second clause 


1JIn Aristoph. Av. 1238 the Cod. Ray. has οἷς θυτέον αὐτοῖς for the rec. οἷς Our. 
αὐτούς. On another accumulation of the pronoun see below, § 23, 3. 





§ 22. ‘PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 149 


(see just below). In Rom. vii. 21 the first ἐμοί does not appear to me to 
belong to the same proposition as the second, see ὃ 61,5. Ditierent also are 
those passages in which with the pers. pron. still another word is joined by 
which the relative is epexegetically defined, as Gul. iii. 1 οἷς κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμοὺς 
Ἰησοῦς Xp. προεγράφη ἐν ὑμῖν (in animis vestris) ἐσταυρωμένος (Lev. xv. 16; 

xxi. 20; xxii. 4; Ruth ii. 2); Rev. xvii. 9 ὅπου ἡ γυνὴ κάθηται ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν, 

xiii, 12; cf. Gen. xxiv. 3, 87; Judg. vi. 10; Exod. xxxvi.1; Lev. xvi. 32; 141 — 
Judith ix. 2. Likewise in Gal. ii. 10 ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι Th ed 
the emphasis in the subjoined αὐτό, strengthened by τοῦτο, is evident 

. (Bornem. Luc. p. LIV). | We must not bring under this head 1 Pet. 

ii. 24 ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν etc., where αὐτός obviously 

Ι stands by itself, and gives additional force to the antithesis with ἅμαρτ. 

| ἡμῶν. In Matt. iii, 12 οὗ τὸ πτύον ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ, the relative serves 162 
instead of τούτου to connect what follows with the preceding clause, and 
both pronouns are to be taken separately, as if it read, he has us winnow- 

ing shovel in wis hand. Eph. ii. 10 οἷς προητοίμασεν is to be considered 135 
as an attraction for ἃ mponr. Lastly, in Eph. ii. 21 ἐν κυρίῳ ‘belongs bth οὐ, 
probably with εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον. 

Sometimes αὐτός is repeated in quick succession, though referring to 
different subjects: Mark viii. 22 φέρουσιν αὐτῷ (Χριστῷ) τυφλὸν καὶ παρακα- 
λοῦσιν αὐτὸν (Χριστόν), tva αὐτοῦ (τυφλοῦ) ἅψηται, Mark ix. 27, 28. So 
) οὗτος in Jno. xi. 87. See below, § 67. 

In a clause following a relative clause, and where ὅς or its continued 
influence might be expected, Greek authors frequently —indeed, almost 
uniformly (Bhdy. 304) —employ καὶ αὐτός (οὗτος), the writer modifying 

the construction, (Hm. Vig. 707; Ast. Plat. lege. p. 449; Boisson. Nic. 
Ρ. 32; Bornem. Xenoph. conv. p. 196; Stallb. Plat. Protag. p. 68; rep. 
I. 197; Foertsch, observ. in Lysiam, p. 67; Weber, Dem. 355; Teipel, 
ἰ Scriptores Graec., Germ., Lat. a relativa verbor. construct. saepe neque 
a injuria semper discessisse. Coesfeld, 1841, 4to.; ef. Grotefend, lat. Gramm. 
§ 143, 5; Kritz, Sallust. 11. 540). From the N. T. may be quoted under 
4 this head, 2 Pet. ii. 3 οἷς τὸ κρίμα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ καὶ ἣ ἀπώλεια αὐτῶν οὐ 
νυστάζει, Acts iii. 13; 1 Cor. viii. 6, with less appropriateness Rev. xvii. 2 
μεθ᾽ ἧς ἐπόρνευσαν ... καὶ ἐμεθύσθησαν ἐκ τοῦ οἴνου τῆς πορνείας αὐτῆς, where 
it was necessary to avoid the construction with the relative on account of 
the nouns to be connected with the pronoun. In Hebrew, as is well 
known, owing to its great simplicity, the continuing of a sentence without 
the relative is very common; yet an idiom foreign to the genius of the 
language should not be introduced into the text by supplying “ox with 
the following clause. (In passages such as Jno. i. 6; Acts x. 36; ‘Luke 
ii. 36; xix. 2, to require the relative instead of αὐτός or οὗτος, is to mis- 
apprehend the simplicity of N.T. diction; particularly as even Greek 
authors not unfrequently employ the same idiom; see Aelian 12, 18; 
Strabo 8, 871; Philostr. Soph. 1, 25; cf. Kypke I. 847. On the other 


ee es Ἐ3 Ψ 








150 § 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 


hand, in 1 Cor. vii. 13 for ἥτις ἔχει ἄνδρα ἄπιστον καὶ αὐτὸς συνευδοκεῖ 
etc. the expression ds ovvevd. etc. might have been used.) 

In the N. T. ὃ αὐτός, the same, takes after it a Dat. of the person when 
it denotes the same (identical) with, as 1 Cor. xi. 5; ef. Her. 4,119; Xen. 
M..1,)1, 13 εὐ 2,.4, 0¢-Cyn. 8,3, 854.07, 1,23 Tsocr. Paneg. c. 23; Plat. 
Menex. 244 b.; Dio. Ch. 332, 97. 

Note. Αὐτός in the Nom., as is well known, never stands in classic Greek 
for the unemphatic he (vii. 109,114). From the N. T. also! no decisive 


142 passages can be produced to prove this usage [which Bttm. Gramm. des 
ith ed. neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 93 f. wrongly concedes] (cf. Fr. Mt. p. 47); even 


in Luke, who employs αὐτός the most frequently (cf., in particular, Luke 


168 vy. 16,17; xix. 2), it never occurs without a certain emphasis. It denotes, 


a. Self, in complex antitheses, and for all the three persons, as Mark 


oro ~ 7 ‘A A > - ee 
186 ii. 25 ἐπείνασεν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ per αὐτοῦ, Acts xviii. 19 ἐκείνους κατέλιπεν, αὐτὸς 


Gih ed, δὲ εἰςελθών, ete., Luke v. 37; x. 1; xviii. 39; 1 Cor. iii. 15; Mark i. 8; 


Jno. iv. 2; vi. 6; ix. 21; Luke vi. 42 πῶς δύνασαι λέγειν ... αὐτὸς τὴν ἐν 
τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ σοῦ δοκὸν οὐ βλέπων, Heb. xi. 11 πίστει καὶ αὐτὴ Σάῤῥα δύναμιν 
εἰς καταβολὴν σπέρματος ἔλαβεν even Sara herself (who had been incredu- 
lous), Jno. xvi. 27 αὐτὸς ὁ πατὴρ φιλεῖ ὑμᾶς he himself, of himself (without 
entreaty on my part, verse 26), Rom. viii. 23. Αὐτός was thus used by 
the disciples in speaking of Christ (compare the well known αὐτὸς ἔφα) : 
Mark iv. 38; Luke v.16; ix.51; xxiv. (15) 36. Cf. Fischer, ind. The- 
ophan. under αὐτός. See, in general, the Lexicons. 

b. Reape he, even he: Matt. i. 21 καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν " 
αὐτὸς yap σώσει τὸν λαόν, xii. 50; Col. i. 17. Αὐτός is not used for the 
unemphatic he also in Luke i. 22 (he himself, as distinguished from the 
rest: ἐπέγνωσαν), ii. 28 (he Simeon, as distinguished from the parents of 
Jesus, verse 27), iv. 15; vii. 5 (he, of himself, from his own resources), 
Acts xiv. 12 (he Paul, as leader, verse 11), Mark vii. 86 ; [1 Thess. iii. 11 ; 
iv. 16; v.23; 2 Thess. ii. 16; iii. 16.] (On the antithesis in Rom. viii. 23 
αὐτοὶ... ἐν ἑαυτοῖς see Fr. in loc.) 


5. The reflexive pronoun ἑαυτοῦ, etc., which originally (as com- 
pounded of -@ and αὐτός) belongs to the third person, and in the 
N.T. is regularly so employed (frequently in antithesis and with 
emphasis, 1 Cor. x. 29; xiv. 4; Eph. v. 28, etc.), is also, when no 
ambiguity is to be apprehended, employed in reference to the first 
and second persons. It is used 

a. In the Plural,—as well for the first person, Rom. viii. 23 
(ἡμεῖς) αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς στενάζομεν, 1 Cor. xi. 81; 2 Cor. i. 9; x. 12; 
Acts xxiii. 14, etc.,as for the second, Jno. xii.8 τοὺς πτωχοὺς πάντοτε 

1 According to Thiersch, de Pent. vers. Alex. p. 98, the LXX often use the masc. 


αὐτός for he; but not αὐτή or αὐτό, instead of which the demonstrative is regularly em-~ 
ployed. In reference to the Apocrypha, Wahi, clavis p. 80, utterly denies such a use. 


§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 151 


ἔχετε μεθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν, Phil. ii. 12 τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε, 
Matt. iii. 9; xxiii. 81; Acts xiii. 46; Heb. ili. 13; x. 25, ete. 

b. In the Singular, though far less frequently (Bhdy. 272), in 
reference to the second person, as Jno. xviii. 34 ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ σὺ τοῦτο 
λέγεις, Where σεαυτοῦ in Codd. B [Sin.] and others is undoubtedly 
a correction ; in Rom. xiii. 9; Matt. xxii. 89 Sept. and Gal. v. 14 
σεαυτόν is preponderant. 

This same usage is found in Greek authors (under Ὁ. in particular 
ef. Xen. M. 1, 4,9; 0.1, 6,44; Aristot. Nicom. 2,9; 9, 9;Aelian, 

1, 21; Arrian. Epict. 4, 3, 11), see Locella, Xenoph. Eph. 164 ; 
Bremi, Aeschin. oratt. I. 66; Hm. Soph. Trach. 451; Boisson. 
Philostr. Her. p. 326; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 932; Held, Plut. Aem. 
Paul. p.130. Yet compare the assertion of an ancient grammarian, 
Apollonius, in Wolf and Bttm. Mus. antiq. stud. 1.360 and Eustath. 143 
ad Odyss. é. p. 240. (On ἑαυτῶν etc. for ἀλλήλων see the Lexicons; ὯΝ 
οἵ, Déderlein, Synon. III. 270.) 


In the classic (Attic) writers αὑτοῦ etc. is of frequent occurrence as a 
reflexive (Arndt, de pronom. reflex. ap. Graec. Neobrandenb. 1836, 4to.) ; 
in many passages, however, the Codd. vary between αὑτοῦ and αὐτοῦ It 
is the more difficult to determine on internal grounds which of these in 
each particular case is the true reading, because in Greek a reflexive may 
occur at a considerable distance from the principal subject,? and because 137 
it often depended entirely on the writer whether he would use a reflexive Sth eb 
or not; see Bttm. 10 exc. ad Demosth. Mid. p. 140 sqq.;* F. Hermann, 
comm. crit. ad Plutarch. superst. p. 37 sq.; Benseler, Isocr. Areop. p. 220. 
Likewise in the N. T., in which since Griesbach αὑτοῦ has often been 
adopted, cautious editors have frequently been at a loss in deciding whether 
αὐτοῦ or αὑτοῦ should be preferred. Sometimes either would be appropriate. 
In Matt. iii. 16, for instance, εἶδε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ ... ἐρχόμενον ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν 
might be used from the narrator’s point of view; on the other hand, ἐφ᾽ 
avrov would refer directly to the subject of the verb εἶδε, that is, Jesus 
(Krii.110). In the N. T. it is, in general, unlikely that a reflexive should 
be used in reference to a remote subject, that is, one which is not in the 


1In the later writers, as Aesop, the Scholiasts, etc. αὐτοῦ seems to predominate ; see 
Schaef. ind. ad Aesop. p. 124. Cf. Thilo, Apocr. I. 163. 

2 Cf., however, Ποία, Plut. Timol. p. 373." 

8 Bremi, in the Jahrb. der Philol. IX. 8S. 171, says: ‘ On the use of αὐτοῦ and αὑτοῦ it 
is easy to lay down rules, but in certain cases the decision will always remain doubtful ; 
and it is far more difficult in Greek than in Latin to hit the mark,” etc. ‘ When the 
reference to the subject predominates in the mind, the reflexive is used ; but when the 
subject is viewed as a more remote object, the pronoun of the 3d person. In Greek one 
must yield rather to his individual impression, if you please, his mood at the moment.” 
Further, see some good remarks on reciprocal pronouns in general by Hoffmann, in the 
Jahrb. ἃ. Philol. VII. S. 38 ff. 


152 § 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 


same proposition as the pronoun; this is owing to the simplicity of its 
narrative style, which, in like manner, disdains to adhere closely to the 
relative construction, see above p. 149. Accordingly, in Matt. in the 
passage referred to and in Eph. i. 17 αὐτόν, αὐτοῦ, should be adopted with- 
out hesitation, but αὑτοῦ in Acts xii. 11; Heb. v.7; Rom. xiv. 14; see 
Fr. Exc. 5 ad Matt. p. 858 sqq. (where the view of Matthiae ad Eurip. 
Iphig. Aul. 800 and Gramm. I. 355 is examined) ; Poppo, Thue. ILL. I. 
159 sq. On the other hand, it deserves attention, as remarked by Bengel, 
appar. ad Matt. i. 21, that in the Codd. of the N. T. the prepositions ἀπό, 
ἐπί, ὑπό, κατά, μετά, [ἀντί] are never written ἀφ᾽, ἐφ᾽, etc. before avrov. 
Hence, with Bleek (Epist. to the Heb. II. 69), it might be inferred that 
the N. T. writers never employed the reflexive form αὑτοῦ, (but used, 
wherever necessary, ἑαυτοῦ instead of it). In fact, recent editors. have 
printed the form αὐτοῦ almost everywhere; as the uncial Codd. of the 
N. T. and of the Sept. that have diacritic marks recognize αὐτοῦ almost 
144 exclusively (Tdf. praef. N. Τὶ p. 26 sq. [ed. vii. p. 58 sq.]). These Codd.,_ 
Τὰ οἱ. to be sure, are not of greater antiquity than the eighth century, and the 
165 expression “ fere constanter” suggests the desirableness of a more accurate 
collation. Now it is true that in most passages a reflexive is not absolutely 
required ; yet it is difficult to believe that Paul in Rom. iii. 25 could 
have written εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ (in the face of ἐν αἵματι αὐτοῦ), 
or Jno. in ix. 21 αὐτὸς περὶ αὐτοῦ ; compare also Eph. i. 9; Rom. xiv. 14; 
_ Luke xix. 15; xiii. 34; Mark viii. 35; Rev. xi.7; xiii. 2. Hence in the 
N. T. also, the choice between αὐτοῦ and αὑτοῦ must be left to the discreet 
judgment of editors. 
6. The personal pronouns ἐγώ, σύ, ἡμεῖς, etc. are indispensable 
in the oblique cases, but in the Nom. they are regularly employed 
138 only when emphasis — and mostly in consequence of an antithesis 
ithe. is expressed or implied in them ; as, Phil. iv. 11 ἐγὼ ἔμαθον ἐν 
οἷς εἰμὶ αὐτάρκης εἶναι, Jno. ii. 10 πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ... σὺ τετήρηκας 
éte., Rom. vii. 17; Luke xi. 19; Acts x. 15; Mark xiv. 29; Jno. 
xviii. 88 f.; Gal. ii. 9; Acts xi. 14 σωθήσῃ σὺ καὶ ὁ oiKds cov, Jno. 
x. 80; Acts xv. 10; 1 Cor. vii. 12; Luke i. 18; Matt. vi. 12 ἄφες 
ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν ὡς Kal ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν etc., Jno. iv. 10 
σὺ ἂν ἤἥτησας αὐτόν (while J asked of thee, verses 7,9), Mark vi. 87 
δότε αὐτοῖς ὑμεῖς φαγεῖν (ye, since they themselves have no pro- 
visions with them vs. 36), Jno. vi. 830; xxi. 22; Mark xiii. 9, 28 ; 
1 Cor. ii. 81. ; Matt. xvii. 19; 2 Tim, iv. 6. 
So when a pesos is ἀμενει δή by a word in apposition; as 
Jno. iv. 9 πῶς σὺ ᾿Ιουδαῖος ὦν etc., Rom. xiv. 4 od τίς εἶ ὁ κρίνων 
ἀλλότριον οἰκέτην, Jno. x. 33 ; Ketel i. 24; iv. 24; Lukei. 76; Eph. 
iv. 1; or reference is made to some, preceding description, as Jno. 
v. 44 (42, 43); Rom. ii. 8; or such description is assumed as 


882. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 158 


something known, as ὅπο. i. 80; Luke ix. 9 (J,—one who as king 
is certain of what has taken place); Eph. v. 82 (1 as apostle) ; 
Jno. ix. 24; Gal. vi. 17; 1 Cor. xi. 23. Σύ is used in addresses 
particularly when one out of many is meant, as Jno. i. 43; Jas. 
ii. 3; or when the person addressed is made prominent by an 
attributive, as 2 Tim. ii. 1; Matt. xi. 23. 

These pronouns nowhere occur wholly without emphasis and 
where they might have been dispensed with (Bornem. Xen. Cony. 
187). For when in Eph. v. 32, for instance, we find ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω 
εἰς Χριστόν, but in 1 Cor. i. 12; Rom. xv. 8 λέγω δέ, ---- ἴῃ the 
first passage an emphasis is intended, in the other two, none. 
Moreover, the Codd. vary much with regard to the use or omission, 
as well as the position, of these pronouns; and each case must 
be decided, not according to any fancied peculiarity of style in 
-the separate writers (Gersd. I. 472 f.), but according to the nature 
of the sentence. 


The personal pronoun is both used and omitted in close succession in 166 
Luke x. 23, 24 of βλέποντες ἃ βλέπετε... πολλοὶ προφῆται ... ἠθέλησαν 
ἰδεῖν, ἃ ὑμεῖς βλέπετε. Only the latter case, however, contains a real 
antithesis (ὑμεῖς opposed to προφῆται, βασιλ., etc.) ; in the first, the ὀφθαλ- 
pot βλέποντες ἃ βλέπετε are properly none other than those of which the 
βλέπετε is predicated. Compare 2 Cor. xi. 29 τίς ἀσθενεῖ καὶ οὐκ ἀσθενῶ ; 145, 
τίς σκανδαλίζεται καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ πυροῦμαι; where it must be noticed that in Τὰ οἱ. 
the latter member πυροῦμαι (which the apostle applies to himself’) is a 
stronger word than σκανδαλίζεσθαι. In 1 Cor. xiii. 12 τότε ἐπιγνώσομαι 
καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην, some authorities add ἐγώ to the latter verb; but 
incongruously, since the antithesis is expressed by the vox verbt. 

It may be remarked, in passing, that in some books of the Old Test. 
the emphatic "33% with a verb has been translated by the Sept. ἐγώ εἰμι, 
with which the first person of the verb is then connected; as, Judg. xi. 27 
*MNOM ND ADIN? καὶ νῦν ἐγώ εἰμι οὐχ ἥμαρτον ; cf. v.3; vi. 18; 1 Kings ii. 2. 

On αὐτὸς ἐγώ (in Acts x. 26 κἀγὼ αὐτός) see Fr. Rom. II. 75. 

7. The possessive pronouns are sometimes to be understood 
objectively ; as, Luke xxii. 19 ἡ ἐμὴ ἀνάμνησις memoria mei (1 Cor. 

xi. 24), Rom. xi. 31 τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει. xv. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 31; xvi. 17 139 
(not in Jno. xv. 10). So also in Greek authors (especially the δ ο, 
poets) ; as, Xen. Cyr. 8, 1, 28 εὐνοίᾳ καὶ φιλίᾳ τῇ ἐμῇ, Thue. 1,77 

τὸ ἡμέτερον δέος, 6, 89; Plato, Gorg. 486 a.; Antiphon. 6, 41, ete. 

On the Latin cf. Kritz, Sallust. Cat. p. 248. 

Instead of a possessive pronoun ἴδιος is occasionally employed in 
the N.'T.—an impropriety similar to the use of proprius instead 


of suus or ejus in later Latin (and of οἰκεῖος by the Byzantine 
20 


167 


146 
Tth ed. 


140 
6th ed. 


154 § 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 


writers, see e.g. Index to Agath., Petr. Patric., Priscus, Dexipp., 
Glycas, and Theophanes in the Bonn edit.),—as Matt. xxii. 5 
ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸν ἴδιον ἀγρόν, without any emphasis (that is, without 
any antithesis to κοινός or ἀλλότριος), its parallel in the second 
member is ἐπὶ τὴν ἐμπορίαν αὑτοῦ; xxv. 14 ἐκάλεσε τοὺς ἰδίους 
δούλους, ‘Tit. ii. 9; Jno. i, 42. So οἱ ἴδιοι ἄνδρες. husbands, in Eph. 
v. 22; Tit. ii. 5; 1 Pet. iii. 1,5, where of ἄνδρες with or without 
a personal pronoun was sufficient; ef. 1 Cor. vii. 9.1 Yet on the 
whole this usage is but rare, and from Greek authors no appropriate 
instance can be produced; for all that has been quoted by Schwarz, 
Comment. p. 687, and Weiske, de pleon. p. 62, is unsatisfactory 
or at most but plausible; so also D.S. 5,40. Occasionally, vice 
versa, σφέτερος is found for isos ; see Wessel. Diod. S. 11. 9, On 
the other hand, the Fathers undoubtedly sometimes employ ἔδιος 
for the personal pronoun, ef. Epiphan. Opp. 11. 622 ἃ. 

In by far thé greater number of passages in which ἴδιος is used, 
there is an antithesis either evident or concealed; as, Jno. x. 3; 
vi 18; Matt. xxv. 15; Acts ii.6; Rom. viii. 32; xi. 24; xiv. 4,5; 
1 Thess. ii. 14; Heb. ix. 12; xiii. 12, also Matt.ix.1. The parallels 
in 1 Cor. vii. 2 ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἐχέτω, Kai ἑκάστη τὸν 
ἴδιον ἄνδρα ἐχέτω mean: let each man have his wife, and let each 
woman have her own husband. Isocr. Demon. p. 18 σκόπει πρῶτον, 
πῶς ὑπὲρ TOV αὑτοῦ διῴκησεν" ὁ γὰρ κακῶς διανοηθεὶς ὑπὲρ τῶν 
ἰδίων etc. Bédhme, Kiihnél, and others, improperly regard ἰδιος 
in Heb. vii. 27 also, as used for the simple possessive pronoun ; to 
ἰδίαι ἁμαρτίαι there, at τοῦ λαοῦ (as ἀλλοτρίαιν are expressly op- 
posed ; cf. also iv. 10. When ἴδιος, as in Tit. i. 12 idvos αὐτῶν 
προφήτης (Wisd. xix. 12), is added to a personal pronoun, the 
pronoun merely expresses the idea of possession (their poet), 
and ἴδιος makes the antithesis, their own (not a foreign) poet. 
Similarly in Aeschin. Ctesiph. 294 ο. ; Xen. Hell. 1,4,13; Plato, 
Menex. 247b. See Lob. Phryn. p. 441; Wurm, Dinarch. p. 70. 


Kara with the Acc. of a personal pronoun is considered as a circumlo- 
cution for the possessive pronoun, as Eph. i. 15 ἡ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς πίστις your 
faith, Acts xvii. 28 οἱ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς ποιηταί, xviii. 15 νόμος 6 καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς, xxvi. 3, 
etc. This is in the main correct; it results, however, quite naturally from 
the signification of κατά: ἡ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς πίστις is properly fides quae ad vos 


1 Mey. attributes to these passages an emphasis which is either quite out of place 
(Matt. xxy. 14), or which could have been fully expressed by the pronoun. Even this 
strengthening of the pronoun by ἴδιος where there is no trace of an antithesis is foreign 
to the classics, 


- 
a 


§ 22, PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 155 


pertinet, apud vos (in vobis) est ; cf. Aelian. 2,12 ἡ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ἀρετή, Dion. 
H. I. 235 οἱ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς χρόνο: Cf. § 30, 3, note 5, p. 193. 

Note 1. The Genitive of the personal pronouns, especially μοῦ and σοῦ 
(more rarely ὑμῶν, ἡμῶν, αὐτοῦ), is, even when no particular emphasis is 
intended, very often’ put before the governing substantive (and its Article) ; 
as, Matt. ii. 2; vii. 24; viii. 8; xvi. 18; xvii. 15; xxiii. 8; Mark v. 30; 
ix. 24; Rom. xiv.16; Phil. ii. 2; iv. 14; Col. ii. 5; iv. 18; 1 Cor. viii. 12; 
1 Thess. ii. 16; iii. 10,13; 2 Thess. ii. 17; iii. 5; 1 Tim. iv. 15; 2 Tim. 
i. 4; Philem. 5; Luke vi. 47; xii. 18; xv. 30; xvi.6; xix. 35,etc. Jno. 


ii. 23; iii. 19, 21, 33; iv. 47; ix. 11, 21, 26; xi. 32; xii. 40; xiii 1, etc. 168 


1 Jno. iii. 20; Rev. iii. 1, 2,8,15; x. 9; xiv. 18; xvili. 5, etc. This 
takes place even in connection with a preposition ; as, Jno. xi. 82 ἔπεσεν 
αὐτοῦ εἰς τοὺς πόδας ; yet in many such passages variants are noted. See, 
in general, Gersdorf as above, 456 ff. 

The Gen. of the pronoun is designedly put before the substantive, a. for 
emphasis, Eph. ii. 10 αὐτοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν ποίημα, more emphatic than ἐσμὲν 
γὰρ π. αὐτοῦ, Luke xii. 30; xxii. 53; Ὁ. for the sake of contrast, 1 Cor. 
ix. 11 μέγα, εἰ ἡμεῖς ὑμῶν τὰ σαρκικὰ θερίσομεν, Phil. iii. 20; ὁ. when the 
Gen. belongs to two nouns,” Jno. xi. 48 ἡμῶν καὶ τὸν τόπον καὶ τὸ ἔθνος, Acts 
xxi. 11; Luke xii. 35; Rev. ii. 19 ; 2 Cor. viii. 4; 2 Tim. iii. 10; ΤΙ. 1. 1ὅ ; 
1 Thess. i. 3; ii. 19 (D.S. 11,16). (The form ἐμοῦ depending on a noun, 
and placed after it, occurs only in such combinations as Rom. i. 12 πίστεως 
ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ, xvi. 13 μητέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐμοῦ.) The insertion of a per- 
sonal pronoun between an article and a noun, as in 2 Cor. xii. 19 ὑπὲρ τῆς 


_ 


ὑμῶν οἰκοδομῆς, xili. 9; i. 6, occurs on the whole but rarely. Cf. in general, 147 


Kriiger, Xen. Anab. 5, 6, 16. 

When the noun is preceded by an adjective, the Genitive of the per- 
sonal pronoun if placed before the noun is inserted between it and the 
adjective ; as, 2 Cor. v. 1 ἡ ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν οἰκία, 2 Cor. iv. 16 ὁ ἔξω ἡμῶν 
ἄνθρωπος. 

Note 2. The Dative of the personal pronouns in easy and familiar 
speech is sometimes in Greek and Hebrew (just as it is with us) appar- 
ently superfluous (dativus ethicus, Bttm. 120, 2, and Dem. Mid. p. 9; Jacob, 
Lucian. Toxar. p. 138). As instances of this usage from the N. T.— where 
certainly it might have been expected — are enumerated sometimes Matt. 


xxi. 5, a quotation from the Old Test., sometimes Matt. xxi. 2; Rev. ii. 5,4- 


16; Heb. x. 34. But in the first of these last three passages, ἀγάγετέ μοι 
means bring him to me, and ἀγάγετε alone would have been defective. In 
Rey. ii. ἔρχομαί σοι ταχύ signifies J will come (punishing, cf. 14 ἔχω κατὰ 


1‘O πατήρ μου and ὃ vids μου ὃ ἀγαπητός is the usual order even in the N. T. Like- 
wise the Gen. of αὐτός is regularly (see, however, Rost p. 459) put after the substantive. 

? When this arrangement is not adopted, the pronoun must, for perspicuity, be re- 
peated, Acts iv. 28 ὅσα 7 χείρ cov καὶ ἣ βουλή cov προώρισε, etc. Matt. xii. 47; from 
the Sept., Luke xviii. 20; Acts ii. 17. 


Tth ed, 


156 § 22, PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 


σοῦ ὀλίγα, and 16 μετανόησον) to thee, on thee (ἐπὶ σέ iii. 3) quickly Tn 


141 the third passage ἔχειν ἑαυτοῖς ὕπαρξιν means repositam or destinatam sibi 
bth el. Aabdere, Jor themselves, as belonging to themselves. Even in Matt. xxi. 5 


169 


σοί is not without force. 

Note 8. Likewise ἡ ψυχή pov, cov, εἴα.) is commonly regarded as a cir- 
cumlocution for the personal pronoun (Weiske, Pleon. p. 72 sq.), now in 
quotations from the Old Test., as Matt. xii. 18; Acts ii. 27; Heb. x. 38, 
now in the N. T. itself, and this use of the word is usually considered as a 
Hebraism (Gesen. Lg. 5. 752 f.; Vorst, Hebr. p.121sq.; Riick. on Rom. 
xiii. 1). In no passage of the N. T., however, does ψυχή stand completely 


devoid of meaning, any more than v3 in Hebrew (see my edition of 


Simonis) ; it signifies the soul (the spiritual principle on which Christianity 
operates 1 Pet. i. 9) in such expressions as 2 Cor. xii. 15 ἐκδαπανηθήσομαι 


ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν, 1 Pet. ii. 25 ἐπίσκοπος τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν, Heb. xiii. 17, 


or the heart (the seat of the affections and desires), as in Rev. xviii. 14 
ἐπιθυμίαι τῆς ψυχῆς σου, Matt. xxvi. 88 περίλυπός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή pov, Acts 
ii. 48 ἐγένετο πάσῃ ψυχῇ φόβος. Even in Rom. ii: 9 ψυχή is not a mere 
redundancy ; it denotes that in man which feels the θλῖψις and στενοχωρ., 
even should these come upon the body. In Rom. xiii. 1 πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἐξουσίαις 
ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω, the words πᾶσα ψυχή standing thus alone (cf. 
1 Pet. iii. 20) may mean every soul, 1.6. every person; but even in an 
enumeration of the inhabitants in any place, so many “souls” (Lat. capita) 
is not precisely the same as so many “men” (persons). Cf. also Acts 
iii. 23 Sept. And so the use of the word ψυχή contributes everywhere to 
vivacity or circumstantiality of discourse, which is totally different from 
pleonasm. Besides, ψυχή is not unfrequently so used in Greek authors 
also (cf. Xen. Cyr. 5, 1, 27; Aelian. 1. 32), particularly the poets (Soph. 


148 Philoct. 714; Oed. Col. 499, 1207) ;? and this use must be deemed not 
Ith el. 2 Hebraism, but a relic of antique vivacity of expression. See further 


Georgi, Vind. p. 274; Schwarz, ad Olear. p. 28; Comment. p. 1439. 


1 See on the similar phrase ἥκω σοι Hm. Lucian. conser. hist. p. 179 (e.g. Lucian. 
pisc. 16 ἥξω ὑμῖν ἐκδικάσασα τὴν δίκην). It is a sort of dativus incommodi, § 31, 4 b.; 
ef. 1 Kings xv. 20, LXX. 

2 In these passages it is easy to discern the notion of anima, and I do not know why 
Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 979, takes ψυχή here for a mere circumlocution. Likewise the 
passages from Plato which Ast, Lexic. Plat. III. 575, quotes, are deprived of their peculiar 
shade of meaning by the canon: orationem amplificat. 

8 Matt. vi. 25, where ψυχή is opposed to σῶμα, can present no difficulty to any one 
acquainted with the anthropological notions of the Jews. Likewise καρδία is not a mere 
cireumlocution in Acts xiv. 17 ἐμπιπλῶν τροφῆς k. εὐφροσύνης Tas καρδίας ὑμῶν, and 
Jas. v. 5 ἐθρέψατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, for otherwise it would have been possible to say, 
he smote his heart, for him, etc. Yet καρδία is probably used here not merely —as 23> 
is sometimes — in a material sense, agreeably to the physiological views of antiquity . 
to. strengthen the heart, i.e. primarily the stomach, and through that the heart (even in 
Greek the signification stomach in καρδία has not altogether disappeared), but includes 
the idea of the pleasures of eating ; see Baumgarten on the latter passage. 


§ 23. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN. 157 


§ 23. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN. 


1. The pronoun οὗτος sometimes refers, not to the noun locally 
nearest, but to one more remote, which, as the principal subject, 
was mentally the nearest, the most present to the writer’s thoughts 
(Schaef. Demosth. V. 322; Stallb. Plat. Phaedr. p. 28, 157; 
Foertsch, obs. in Lysiam p. 74); as, Acts iv. 11 οὗτός (Ἰησοῦς 
Χριστός verse 10, the nearest preceding noun being ὁ θεός) ἐστιν ὁ 
λίθος, 1 Jno. v. 20 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεός, that is, ὁ θεός, not 
Χριστός (which immediately precedes) as the older theologians on 
doctrinal considerations maintained ; for in the first place, ἀληθινὸς 
θεός is a constant and exclusive epithet of the Father; and secondly, 
a warning against idolatry follows, and ἀληθινὸς θεός is invariably 
contrasted with εἴδωλα. A passage admitting of question is Acts 
viii. 26 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἔρημος, where some supply the nearest subject 
Tafa, and others ὁδός, see Kiihnél in loc. and my bibl. RWB. 1. 
S. 395; 1 prefer the latter decidedly. The construction is more 
obvious in Acts vii. 19; 2 Jno. 7. (For examples from Greek 
prose, see Ast, Plat. Polit. 417; legg. p. 77.) On the other hand, 
ἐκεῖνος in Acts iii. 13 must be referred to the nearest subject (Bremi, 
Lys. p. 154; Schoem. Plut. Agid. p. 73; Foertsch, as above; Krii. 
118). So also in Jno. vii. 45, where ἐκεῖνοι denotes the members 
of the Sanhedrim (apytep. καὶ Papic.) grouped together (by the 
use of a single Article) as one body. For οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος so 
connected that the former refers to the more remote subject and 
the latter to the nearer, see Plut. vit. Dem. 8. (For ἐκεῖνος where 
only one subject is spoken of and οὗτος, or simply αὐτός, was to be 
expected, see 2 Cor. viii. 9; Tit. iii. 7.) 

In Phil. i. 18 καὶ ἐν τούτῳ χαίρω, the demonstrative points merely to the 
main thought Χριστὸς καταγγέλλεται; and in 2 Pet. i. 4 διὰ τούτων refers 
to ἐπαγγέλματα. 

The Relative also is sometimes thought to refer thus to a more remote 
subject (cf. Bhdy. 297; Gdéller, Thuc. II. 21; Siebelis, Pausan. III. 52 ; 
Schoem. Isae. p. 242sq.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph.-II. 369, and, in regard to 
Latin, Kritz, Sallust. II. 115) e.g. in 1 Cor. i. 8 (Pott, in loc.) where ὅς 
is referred to θεός as the principal subject vs. 4, though “Imo. Χριστ. im- 
mediately precedes. This, however, is not necessary, either on account of 
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν “Ino. Xp. at the end of the vs. (cf. Col. ii. 11; Eph. iv. 12), 
or of πιστὸς ὃ θεός immediately following; for what is here asserted of God, 
the calling εἰς κοινωνίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, is at the same time a calling to 
βεβαιοῦσθαι through Christ, which can take place only in the fellowship 


142 
6th ed, 


170 


149 
τὰ ed. 


158 § 23, THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN. 


of Christ. To evade antiquarian difficulties this rule has been applied 

also to Heb. ix. 4 (see Kiihnél in 1.), and on doctrinal grounds to ἐφ᾽ ᾧ in 

Rom. v. 12, but in both cases very erroneously. In Heb. ν. 7, and 2 Thess. 

ii. 9 there is no difficulty. In 2 Pet. iii. 12 dv ἦν can very well be referred 
148 to the nearest noun ἡμέρας, and ᾧ in 1 Pet. iv. 11 to the principal subject 
bth ed. θεός. On Heb. iii. 6 οὗ οἶκος modern expositors are correct. 


2. A demonstrative pronoun preceding a relative clause, if it 
has no special emphasis, is usually included in the relative pronoun 
(Kri. 124 f.). This occurs not only 

a. When, if expressed, it would regularly or by attraction stand 

171 in the same case with the relative, as a) Acts i. 24 ἀνάδειξον ὃν 
ἐξελέξω for τοῦτον ὅν, Rom. viii. 29; Jno. xviii. 26 συγγενὴς dv οὗ 
ἀπέκοψεν Πέτρος τὸ ὠτίον, 1 Cor. vii. 839; 2 Cor. xi. 12; Phil. iv.11; 
B) Acts viii. 24 ὅπως μηδὲν ἐπέλθῃ ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ ὧν εἰρήκατε for τούτων ἃ 
εἰρ. XXi. 19; xxii. 15; xxvi. 16, 22; Luke ix. 86; Rom. xv. 18; 
Eph. iii. 20 ; 2 Cor. xii. 17; cf. Isa. ii. 8; Wisd. xii. 14; Tob.i.8; 
xii. 2,6. Plato, Gorg. 457 6. ; Phaed. 94 ὁ. ; Isocr. Phil. p. 226, 
and de pace 388; Plut. virt. mul. p. 202; Xen. A. 1,9, 25; Dem. ep. 
5 in. and Olyn. I. p. 2a.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 11. 868. But also, 

b. When the demonstrative would require a different case, as 
Jno. xiii. 29 ἀγόρασον ὧν χρείαν ἔχομεν (ταῦτα dv), Rom. vi. 16 ; 
Matt. xix. 11; Acts viii. 19; xiii. 37; 1 Cor. xv. 36; 2 Pet. i. 9, 
cf. Xen. C. 6,2, 1 ἀπήγγειλας ὧν ἐδέου, Eurip. Med. 735 ἐμμένειν 
ἅ σου κλύω 1.6. τούτοις a, see Elmsley in loc.; Lysias p. 152 Steph. 
μὴ κατωγυγνώσκετε ἀδικίαν Tov... δαπανῶντος GAN ὅσοι... εἰθι- 
σμένοι εἰσὶν ἀναλίσκειν for τούτων ὅσοι, see Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 189 ; 
cf. Kritz, Sallust. 11. 801. And in this instance even the prep- 
osition on which the case of the demonstrative depends is also 
omitted ; as, Rom. x. 14 was πιστεύσουσιν οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν 1.6. εἰς 
τοῦτον ov, etc.) 

150 If, when the demonstrative before the relative is omitted, a 

ith el. preposition precedes, the preposition belongs logically either, 

a) To the relative clause; as, Rom. x. 14 πῶς ἐπικαλέσονται εἰς 
ὃν οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν, Vi. 21 τίνα καρπὸν εἴχετε τότε (VIZ. τούτων) ἐφ᾽ 


οἷς νῦν ἐπαισχύνεσθε,2 xiv. 21; Jno. xix. 37 (Sept.) ; Luke ν. 25; 


1 Similar to this would be 1 Tim. ii. 10 ἀλλ᾽ ὃ πρέπει γυναιξὶν ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέ- 
βειαν, if we unite with Matthies in resolving ἀλλ᾽ into ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τούτῳ ὃ mp. But it is 
simpler and easier to explain the passage by joining δ ἔργων with κοσμεῖν verse 9. 
Had Paul intended to convey the former meaning, he would have expressed himself 
distinctly by writing ἐν ᾧ πρέπει etc. 

2 Reiche has obviously stated more than the truth in asserting that in all other in- 
stances the only demonstrative omitted, is one governed by a verb, and never one gov- 


§ 23. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN. 159 


2 Pet. ii. 12;1 Soph. Phil. 957 ; Aristot. rhet. 2, 1,7; Isocr. Demon. 
4 pi 2... Or, 

Ὁ) To the demonstrative understood ; as, Jno. vi. 29 ἵνα πιστεύ- 

σητε εἰς ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος, xvii. 9; Rom. xiv. 22; 2 Cor. v.10; 
xii. 6; Gal. i. 8f:; Heb. v. 8 (Num. vi. 21). Also Heb. ii. 18 ἐν 144 
ᾧ πέπονθεν αὐτὸς πειρασθείς, δύναται τοῖς πειραζομένοις βοηθῆσαι ὑι ed. 
might be resolved thus: ἐν τούτῳ ὃ πέπονθεν ... δύναται... βοη- 172 
θῆσαι. Of. Xen. Μ. 2, 6, 84 ἐγγίγνεται εὔνοια πρὸς ods ἂν ὑπολάβω 
εὐνοϊκῶς ἔχειν πρὸς ἐμέ, Anab. 1, 9, 26 ; Hell. 4, 8, 33 ; Demosth. 
Con. p. 729 a.; Olynth. 1. p. 2; ep. 4p. 118 b.; Plato, rep. 2, 375 d.; 
and Phaed. 61c¢.; Arrian. Alex. 6, 4,3; Diog. L. 9, 67; 6,74. Or, 

9) To both clauses; as, 2 Cor. ii. 3 ἵνα μὴ λύπην ἔχω ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔδει 
pe χαίρειν, 1 Cor. vii. 39; x. 30; Jno. xi.6; Rom. xvi. 2 (ef. Isoer. 
Evag. p. 470 πλείους ἐν τούτοις τοῖς τόποις διατρίβειν, ἢ παρ᾽ ols 
πρότερον εἰωθότες ἦσαν. Cic. Agrar. 2,27). Also 1 Cor. vii. 1, and 
Phil. iv. 11 may be so construed. 

Relative Adverbs, in like manner, often include definite ; as, 
Jno. xi. 32 ἦλθεν ὅπου ἣν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (i.e. ἐκεῖσε Grov), Vi. 62; 
Mark v. 40 εἰςπορεύεται ὅπου ἣν τὸ παιδίον (cf. Bttm. Philoct. p. 
107), 1 Cor. xvi. 6; Matt. xxv. 24 συνάγων ὅθεν οὐ διεσκόρπισας 
for ἐκεῖθεν ὅπου, ef. Thuc. 1,89. Still more free is the construction 
in Jno. xx. 19 τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων ὅπου ἦσαν oi μαθηταί ete. 

It has already been mentioned, that in such condensed sentences 
(where a Greek would not properly supply a demonstrative, Krii. 
124) ἃ comma should not be inserted before the relative. In Jno. 

vi. 29 a comma would be absurd. 

3. In emphatic passages the demonstrative is repeated in con- 
nected clauses several times in succession ; as, Acts vii. 35 τοῦτον 
τὸν Mwichy...todtov ὁ θεὸς ἀπέσταλκεν... οὗτος ἐξήγαγον ... 
οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Μωῦσῆς ὁ εἴπας ... οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ γενόμενος ἐν TH 
ἐκκλησίᾳ etc.; and, in a different spirit, Jno. vi. 42 οὐχ οὗτός 
ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ vids ᾿Ιωσήφ... πῶς οὖν λέγει οὗτος etc. See 
Bornem. bibl. Stud. der sachs. Geistl. 1. 06 f., who, among other 151 
passages, quotes as parallel Xen. M. 4, 2, 28 καὶ of τε ἀποτυγχά- ih et 
νοντες τῶν πραγμάτων ἐπιθυμοῦσι τούτους ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν βουλεύεσθαι, 
καὶ προίστασθαί τε ἑαυτῶν τούτους, καὶ τὰς ἐλπίδας τῶν ἀγαθῶν 


— κάδον 


ee aS a ee ee 


ee el ee 6 ne 
o- 


erned by a noun; cf. Jno. xviii. 26; Luke xxiii.41. Besides, were the assertion correct, 
it would prove nothing against the above explanation, see Fr. Morcover, ἐφ᾽ οἷς might 
perhaps also be taken in the sense discussed by Weber, Demosth. p. 492. 

1 ᾿Αγνοεῖν ἐν Porphyr. abst. 2,53. Some also refer to this head Rom. vii. 6, supplying 
ἐκείνῳ (νόμῳ) before ἐν 6; but ἐν ᾧ refers back to ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου, and ἀποθαν. is annexed 
absolutely to denote the modus of xatnpy. See Philippi. 


Ἶ 
j 
᾿ 
; 
‘ 





160 § 23. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN, 


ἐν τούτοις ἔχουσι καὶ διὰ πάντα ταῦτα πάντων μάλιστα τούτους 
ἀγαπῶσιν. From Latin οἵ, Cic. Verr. 8, 9, 28 hunc in omnibus 
stupris, hwnc in fenorum expilationibus, hune in impuris conviviis 
principem adhibebat (Verres). This Anaphora occurs with a 
relative adjective in Phil. iv. 8 ὅσα ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ, ὅσα σεμνά, ὅσα 
δίκαια, ὅσα ἁγνά, ὅσα προςφιλῆ, ὅσα εὔφημα ; cf., further, § 65. 
+. It is far more common to repeat οὗτος or ἐκεῖνος in the same 
clause after the subject, or the predicate if it precedes; the pro- 
noun is inserted immediately before (more rarely after) the verb. 
173 This occurs when the subject (or predicate) consists of several 
words and is to be made more perspicuous or emphatic ; as, Matt. 
xxiv. 13 ὁ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος, οὗτος σωθήσεται, Jno. i. 18 ὁ μονογενὴς 
υἱὸς ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο, Mark vii. 15 
τὰ ἐκπορευόμενα ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἐκεῖνά ἐστι τὰ κοινοῦντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον, Vii. 
20; xii. 40 ; 1 Cor. vi. 4 τοὺς ἐξουθενημένους ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τούτους 
καθίζετε, Rom. vii. 10, 15 f. 19f.; ix. 6,8; xiv. 14: Jno. ν. 11; 
145 xii. 48; Phil. i. 22 ete.; ef. Thuc. 4, 69 (Xen. cony. 8,83; Ages. 
bth ol. 4 4); Plato, Protag. p. 889 ἅ. ; Isocr. Evag. 6. 23; Paus. 1, 24,5; 
Lucian. fug. 3; Ael. 12,19, ete. See Schaef. Melet. p. 84; Jacob, 
Lucian. Toxar. p. 78, 144, and Lucian. Alex. p:7; Siebelis, Pausan. 
I. 63; Weber, Demosth. 158. As to Latin see Kritz, Sallust. I. 171. 
(The further strengthening of such emphasis by é —Bttm. Demosth. 
Mid. p. 152; Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 252— does not occur 
in the N. T. Neither do the sacred writers exhibit any trace of 
that consequent anacoluthon which is not infrequent in the classics 
— Schwarz, de discipulor. Chr. soloecism. p. T7 —; unless one 
choose to refer the attraction in 1 Pet. ii. 7 to this head.) 

Still more frequently are these pronouns thus used after a 
protasis beginning with a conjunction or a relative; as, Jno. ix. 31 
ἐάν τις θεοσεβὴς ἢ καὶ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ ποιῇ, τούτου ἀκούει, 
Jas. 1.98... Matt. v.19; xii. 50; Phil. iii. 7; iv. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 2. 

The repetition of the demonstrative pronoun in Luke xix. 2 καὶ αὐτὸς 
ἣν ἀρχιτελώνης καὶ οὗτος ἦν πλούσιος, 18 deserving of attention. The 
meaning is: he was a chief publican and besides (as such) was rich, ¢sque 
dives fuit (Mtth. 1040) ; Lchm. has adopted from B the reading καὶ αὐτὸς 
(jv) πλ., which has less to recommend it. Cf., also, Xen. Cyr. 8, ὃ, 48. 

The case is different when, for the sake of perspicuity, in a lengthened 
sentence, a preceding substantive is again brought under the notice of the 
reader by means of a pronoun; as, 2 Cor. xii. 2 οἶδα ἄνθρωπον ἐν Χριστῷ 
+. πρὸ ἐτῶν δεκατεσσάρων ... εἴτε ἐν σώματι ... ἁρπαγέντα τὸν τοιοῦτον 


152 etc. (Plato, rep. 3, 398; Xen. Ο. 1, 8, 15) 1 Cor. v. 3,5; Acts i. 21 f. 
ith el. of, § 22, 4, p. 147. 


§ 23, THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN. 161 


5. A demonstrative pronoun is often placed before ὅτι, ἵνα, and 

similar particles, to give special prominence to the clause that 
follows (particularly in Paul and John) ; as, 1 Tim. i. 9 εἰδὼς τοῦτο, 
ὅτι etc. Acts xxiv. 14 ὁμολογῶ τοῦτό σοι, ὅτι ete. Rom. vi. 6;} 
1 Cor. i. 12; xv. 50; 2 Cor.v.15; x. 7,11; 2 Thess. iii. 10; Phil. 174 
i. 6,25; Jno. xvii. 3; 2 Pet. i. 20; 1 Jno. i. 5; iii. 11, 23; iv. 9,10; .—_ 
v. 3,11,14; 2 Jno. 6; ef. Plato, Soph. 284 Ὁ. So εἰς τοῦτο before 
ἵνα Acts ix. 21; Rom. xiv. 9; 2 Cor. ii. 9; Eph. vi. 22; 1 Pet. iii. 9; 
1 Jno. iii. 8, ἐν τούτῳ ὅτι, 1 Ino. iv. 13, ἐν τούτῳ ἵνα Ino. xv. 8; 
1 Jno. iv. 17 (see Liicke in loc.), ἐν τούτῳ ἐάν 1 Ino. ii. 3, ἐν τούτῳ 
ὅταν 1 Jno. v. 2; οἵ, Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. 11. 461; Franke, 
Demosth. p. 40. 

Likewise when an Infinitive (Mtth. Eurip. Phoen. 520; Sprachl. 


. 1046) or a noun follows as predicate, a demonstrative is employed 


for emphasis; as, 2 Cor. ii. 1 ἔκρινα ἐμαυτῷ τοῦτο, TO μὴ πάλιν 

ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν, vii. 11 αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ κατὰ θεὸν 
λυπηθῆναι, 1 Cor. vii. 37; Eph. iv. 17; Jas. i. 27 (ef. Xen. Hell. 
4,1, 2, and Ages. 1, 8; Plat. Hipp. mai. 802 ἃ. ; Gorg. 491d. ; Isoer. 
Evag.c. 3; Porphyr. abstin. 1,13; Dion. H. VI. 667, and de Thue. 

40, 3; Epict. enchir. 31,1 and 4; Stallb. Plat. rep. II. 261) ; 

2 Cor. xiii. 9 τοῦτο καὶ εὔχομαι, THY ὑμῶν κατάρτισιν, 1 Jno. iii. 24 ; 146 
v. 4 (cf. Achill. Tat. 7,2 φάρμακον αὐτῷ τοῦτο τῆς ... λύπης ἡ πρὸς 6th οἱ 
ἄλλον εἰς TO παθεῖν κοινωνία, Plat. rep. 3,407 ἃ. ; Lucian. navig. 3; 
Eurip. suppl. 510; cf. Jacob, Lucian. Toxar. p. 136; Ast, Plat. 
Polit. p. 466). 

Even εἰς τοῦτο is so used, as Acts xxvi. 16 eis τοῦτο yap ὥφθην 
σοι προχειρίσασθαί σε ὑπηρέτην καὶ μάρτυρα etc., and οὕτως 1 Pet. 
ii. 15 (1 Cor. iv. 1), and ἐντεῦθεν Jas. iv. 1. 

Lastly, a demonstrative is thus prefixed to a participial construc- 
tion ; as, Mark xii. 24 οὐ διὰ τοῦτο πλανᾶσθε, μὴ εἰδότες τὰς γραφάς 
etc., for this cause ... because ye know not ete.; οἵ. Antiphon 6, 

46 οὐκ ἀπεγράφοντο τούτου αὐτοῦ ἕνεκα. οὐχ ἡγούμενοί με ἀποκτεῖναι 


etc., see Maetzner, Antiph. p. 219 ; Schoem. Isaeus p. 370. 


The use of the demonstrative pronoun in such expressions as Acts i. 5 
οὐ μετὰ πολλὰς ταύτας ἡμέρας after (in) a few days, is easily explained. 
It does not depend, as Kiihnél thinks, on a transposition of πολύς, but is 
to be explained like the Latin ante hos quinque dies, etc.; cf. in Greek ὡς 
ὀλίγων πρὸ τούτων ἡμερῶν (Achill. Tat. 7, 14), οὐ πρὸ πολλῶν τῶνδε ἡμερῶν 
(Heliod. 2,22, 97). Αὗται ἡμέραι are, these very days just past ; and ante 
hos quinque dies strictly means: before these (reckoning from the present 


1In Rom. ii. 3 an amplified Voc. intervenes between τοῦτο and the clause with ὅτι. 
21 


162 § 28, THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN. 


time) last past five days. The demonstrative, therefore, connects the 

158 period specified with the present. Expositors and lexicographers are 

ith od. able to explain the force of the demonstrative in Jas. iv. 18 πορευσώμεθα εἰς 
τήνδε τὴν πόλιν into such and such a city, only by a reference to the well- 
known ὃ δεῖνα ; but ὅδε is also used ‘by the Greeks in exactly the same 
way, e.g. Plutarch. Symp. 1, 6, 1 τήνδε τὴν ἡμέραν such and such a day. 
[The full and ordinary demonstrative signification, however, is claimed, 
both for the passage in James and for that in Plutarch, by Bttm. Gramm. 
des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 90; and Huther on James, 2nd. ed., agrees with 
him. | 

175 The Plur. ταῦτα is not unfrequently in Greek employed in reference to 
a single object, and stands therefore, strictly taken, for τοῦτο (Plat. Apol. 
19d.; Phaedr. 70 d.; Xen. Cyr. 5, 8, 19 ; see Schaef. Dion. p. 80 ; ‘ef. also 
Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 524; Stallb. Plat. Apol. p. 19 d.; Maetzner, Antiphon 
p- 153).! Instances of this in the N. T. are ὃ Jno. 4 (where several Codd. 
give the correction ταύτης) see Liicke, and also Jno.i.51; but undoubt- 
edly not Jno. xix. 36, see van Hengel, annotat. p. 85 sq.; in Luke xii. 4 
the adverbial phrase μετὰ ταῦτα means afterwards. Nearly the same is to 
be said of the well known καὶ ταῦτα, tdque, Heb. xi. 12. On 1 Cor. ix. 15 
see Μεγ." In1 Cor. vi. 11 ταῦτα may have a contemptuous secondary 
signification: καὶ ταῦτά τινες ἦτε, and such a set, talis farinae homines 
(Bhdy. 281; Stallb. Plat. Rival. p. 274) ; yet perhaps this was far from 
the apostle’s thought, and ταῦτα is frequently used in reference to a series 
of predicates: of such a description, ex hoe genere fuistis; Kypke and 
Pott in loc. have blended things quite dissimilar. 

147 In 1 Jno. v. 20 Liicke thinks he finds a prozeugma of the demonstrative 

6th ed. pronoun (cf. also Stud. und Kritik. IT. S. 147 ff.) : οὗτός ἐστιν 6 ἀληθινὸς 
θεὸς, καὶ (αὕτη) ζωὴ αἰώνιος, ---- ποῦ impossible, but in my opinion un- 
necessary. 

Note. Respecting the position of οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος, it must be remarked 
that the former, from the nature of the case, usually stands before, and the 
latter after, the substantive ; as, οὗτος ὃ ἄνθρωπος, ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος. Yet 
the opposite order also occurs in the case of οὗτος (Matt. xxviii. 15 6 λόγος 
οὗτος, Luke i. 29 etc.) without essential difference of meaning, with ἐκεῖνος 
(Luke xii. 47; Heb. iv. 11) particularly in the connecting phrases ἐν ἐκείναις 
ταῖς ἡμέραις, ἐν ἐκείνῃ TH ἡμέρᾳ or ὥρᾳ, ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ (Gersdorf 433). 
Τὸ must not, however, be imagined that a writer has so committed himself to 
the one arrangement, that the other should be altered when it is confirmed - 
by approved Codd. or by the sense. 


1 Fritzsche, quaestion. Lucian. p. 126, qualifies this remark as follows: Plur. poni de 
una re tantummodo sic, si neque ulla emergat ambiguitas et aut universe, non definite 
quis loquatur, aut una res plurium vi sit praedita. 

2 In the same way ἐφ᾽ οἷς and ἀνθ᾽ ὧν are used in Greek, where the Sing. would suffice. 
Fr. Rom. I. 299. 


§ 24. THE RELATIVE PRONOUN. 163 


§ 24, THE RELATIVE PRONOUN. 154 
Tth ed, 

1. In accordance with the law of attraction (cf. Hm. Vig. 891 
sqq.; Bhdy. 299 ff.),! the relative pronoun ὅς (never in the N. T. 
éstis),2 which by reason of the governing verb should stand in the 
Accusative, is so drawn by the oblique case (Gen. or Dative) of the 176 
preceding noun with which it has a logical connection (that of a 
subordinate with a principal clause), as to pass over into this 
oblique case. This peculiar construction, which gives a sentence 
more internal unity and a certain periodic compactness, was fre- 

‘quent even in the Sept., and in the N. T. it regularly occurs 
(though not everywhere without var.)'; as, Luke ii. 20 ἐπὶ πᾶσιν 
οἷς ἤκουσαν, Jno. ii. 22 (iv. 50) ἐπίστευσαν τῷ λόγῳ ᾧ εἶπεν, Acts 
iii. 21, 25; vii. 17; x. 39; xvii. 31; xx. 388; xxii.10; Jas. ii. 5; 
1 Pet. iv. 11; Jno. vii. 31, 39; xv. 20; xvii. 5; Mark vii. 13; 
Luke v. 9; xix. 87; Matt. xviii. 19; 1 Cor. vi. 19; 2 Cor. x. 13; 
xii. 21; 2 Thess.i.4; Tit. 11. 6; Heb. vi. 10 (ix. 20); x.1; Eph. 
i. 8; 11. 10; Rev. xviii. 6, ete. (in all which cases the comma in 
the text before the relative is to be rejected, see ὃ 7,1). Jude 15 
περὶ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν ἠσέβησαν deserves par- 
ticular attention, see ὃ 32, 1, p. 222. 

There are, however, passages in which this construction is 

neglected ; as, Heb. viii. 2 τῆς σκηνῆς τῆς ἀληθινῆς, ἣν ἔπηξεν ὁ 
κύριος, and, according to good Codd., Mark xiii. 9; Jno. vii. 89 ; 
iv. 50; ‘it. iii. 5. Besides, compare the var. in Jno. xvii. 11; 
Heb. vi. 10; Acts vii. 16; Rev. i. 20. So frequently in the Sept. 
| and the Apocrypha ( Wahl, clay. p. 360), likewise in Greek authors ; 
_ see Bornem. Xen. Anab. p. 30; Weber, Dem. 543; Krii. 121. 


Eph. i. 6 τῆς χάριτος ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν (var. ἐν 9H), iv. 1 τῆς κλήσεως ἧς 148 
ἐκλήθητε, 2 Cor. i. 4 διὰ τῆς παρακλήσεως ἧς παρακαλούμεθα,2 where ἧς seems bth ed 
to stand for 4, appear to transcend the above\rule. But these passages 
may be accounted for by the well-known expressions κλῆσιν καλεῖν, παρά- 
κλησιν παρακαλεῖν, χάριν χαριτοῦν, ἀγάπην ἀγαπᾶν (§ 32,2), and by the 
equally well-known construction of the Passive; see Gieseler in Rosenm. 


1 Cf. also the thorough treatise of G. T. A. Kriiger (relating more directly to Latin) 
in his Untersuch. a. ἃ. Gebiete der lat. Sprachlehre. 3 Hefte. Braunschw. 1827, 8vo. ; K. 
W. Krager, in his Sprachl. 121, prefers the term assimilation. 

2 The form ὅςτις occurs in the N. T. only as nominative. 

8 Here, however, we may, with Wahl, consider the Gen. as dependent on the omitted 
preposition did; see § 50, 7, p. 421 sq. 








164 § 24. THE RELATIVE PRONOUN. 


Repertor. 11. 124.1 Also in Acts xxiv. 21 φωνῆς ἧς ἔκραξα ἑστώς ete., 
probably ἧς is not used for ἡ (φωνῇ κράζειν Matt. xxvii. 50; Mark i. 26; 


155 Rev. vi. 10, ete.) ef. Boisson. Nicet. p. 33, but φωνή means ery, exclamation 
th ed. (loud utterance); the construction accordingly resolves itself into the 


177 


phrase φωνὴν κράζειν (Rev. vi. 10 var.), which, though unusual, is not 
inadmissible ; cf. Isa. vi. 4 φωνῆς ἧς ἐκέκραγον. (In Eph. i.8 ἧς ἐπερίσσευσεν, 
the verb is to be taken transitively, as γνωρίσας in vs. 9 shows.) That 
attraction nevertheless may affect even the Dative of the relative (so as 
to change it into a Gen.) is shown by G. Kriiger, as above, 274f.; cf. 
Heinichen, Euseb. II. 98 sq. Accordingly Cod. A in 1 Tim. iy. 6 has 
τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας ἧς παρηκολούθηκας. Many expositors, too, as recently 
Fr. also, resolve Rom. iv. 17 κατέναντι οὗ ἐπίστευσεν θεοῦ into κατ. θεοῦ ᾧ 
éxior.; but this is not necessary; see 2 below.? On the other hand, Matt. 
xxiv. 38 ἦσαν ... γαμοῦντες καὶ ἐκγαμίζοντες ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας εἰςῆλθε Νῶε εἰς 
τὴν κιβωτόν is probably contracted from ἄχρι τῆς ju. ἡ εἰςῆλθεν. Similarly 
Luke i. 20; Actsi.2,22. In Ley. xxiii. 1ὅ ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμέρας ἧς ἂν προςενέγκητε 
etc. Bar. 1, 19, we find the same attraction of the Dative of the relative 
when the two clauses are not merged into one; for though ἧς ἡμέρας (on 
which day) also occurs, yet in the Sept. the Dative of time predominates. 


2. Sometimes the opposite construction occurs: that is to say, 
the noun to which the relative refers is drawn into the construction 
of the relative clause and put in that case in which the govern- 
ing verb requires the relative to stand. When this occurs, the 
noun either 

a. Precedes the relative clause; as, 1 Cor. x. 16 τὸν ἄρτον ὃν 


κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος ; Matt. xxi. 42 (LXX.) λίθον͵ 


ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, οὗτος ἐγενήθη, 1 Pet. ii. 7; Luke 
xii. 48 παντὶ ᾧ ἐδόθη πολύ, πολὺ ξητηθήσεται παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, probably 
also' Luke i. 72, 178 μνησθῆναι διαθήκης ἁγίας αὑτοῦ, ὅρκον ὃν 
ὥμοσε πρὸς ᾿Αβραάμ, but probably not Acts x. 86, see below ὃ 62, 3. 
(cf. Gieseler as above, 125; Krii. 224f.) ; Or, 

b. As respects position also is incorporated directly into the 
relative clause; as, Mark vi. 16 dv ἐγὼ ἀπεκεφάλισα ᾿Ιωάννην, οὗτός 
ἐστι, Philem. 10; Luke xix. 37. Likewise Rom. vi. 17 ὑπηκούσατε 
εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς ; this may indeed be resolved into 


A ’ e . a , 
149 εἰς τὸν τύπον διδ. ὃν παρ., an Acc. with a Passive, for ὃς παρεδόθη 


6th ed. 
object see Demosth. Mid. 888 ο. δίκην ἅμα βουλόμενοι λαβεῖν, ὧν 


ὑμῖν ---- (for a similar attraction affecting the Acc. of a more remote 


n e s > 
ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐτεθέαντο θρασὺν ὄντα, where ὧν is for ἅ, 1.6. ἐν οἷς, 


1 And so, probably, should be taken Aristoph. Plut. 1044 τάλαιν᾽ ἐγὼ τῆς ὕβρεως ἧς 
ὁβρίζορμαι. . 
2 Cf. Schmid in the Tiibing. Zeitschr. f. Theol. 1831, II. 137 ff. 





§ 24, THE RELATIVE PRONOUN. 165 


to be joined with @pac. ὄντα, and Dion. Hal. 9, 565 ἀγανάκτησις 
ὑμῶν περὶ ὧν ὑβρίζεσθε ὑπὸ τῶν πυλεμίων, Demosth. ep. 4 p. 118 Ὁ.) 
—or more simply (as Bornem., Riick., Fr., and others have main- 
tained) ὑπηκ. (τῷ) τύπῳ 8d. εἰς ὃν wap., since the construction 
ὑπακούειν Twi! is the only one admissible here. Some explain 


even Acts xxi. 16 ἄγοντες παρ᾽ ᾧ ξενισθῶμεν Mvacwow etc. by 156 


attraction: ἄγ. παρὰ Mvdcwva... παρ᾽ ᾧ ἕεν., yet see ὃ 31, 5. 
On 2 Cor. x. 13 see ὃ 59, 7, p. 530. 

For both the constructions specified above there are additional 
parallels: a) Hippocr. morb. 4,11 tas πηγὰς ἃς ὠνόμασα, αὗται τῷ 
σώματι etc., Lysias bon. Arist. p. 649; Aclian. anim. 3,13; Her. 
2,106; Soph. El. 653, and Trach. 283 ; Eurip. Bacch. 448 sqq.; 
Aristoph. Plut. 200; Alciphr. 3,59, the well-known passage of 
Virgil (Aen. 1, 577) urbem quam statuo vestra est, Terent. eunuch. 
4,3,11; Sen. ep. 53; Wetsten. I. 468. From the Sept. Gen. 
Xxxi. 16 τὴν δόξαν ἣν ἀφείλετο ὁ θεὸς... ἡμῖν ἔσται, Num. xix. 22, 
and from the Acta Petri et Paulied. Thilo 1. 7 ἀρκεῖ ἡμῖν τὴν 
θλῖψιν ἣν ἔχομεν παρὰ Πέτρου. b) Xen. A. 1, 9,19 εἴ τινα ὁρῴη 
κατασκευάζοντα ἧς ἄρχοι χώρας (χώραν ἧς ἄρχοι), Soph. Oed. C. 
907 ; ΕἸ. 1029; Eurip. Orest. 63; Electr. 800, and Hec. 986; Plat. 
Tim. 49e.; Demosth. ep. 4 p.118 ο. ; Plut. Coriol. 9 (Evang. apocr. 
p. 414; Acta apoer. p. 69); ef Liv, 9,2; Terent. Andr. prol. 3. 
See, in general, Mtth. 1054 f.; Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 354. 


Under b. would come also Rom. iv. 17 κατέναντι οὗ ἐπίστευσε θεοῦ, if 
it were tO be resolved into κατ. θεοῦ, ᾧ éxiot. This would be an extension 
of the attraction, become so common, to the Dative, of which no doubt 
occasional instances occur, Krii. 247 f. (Xen. Cyr. 5, 4, 39 ἤγετο τῶν ἑαυτοῦ 
τῶν τε πιστῶν, ols ἥδετο καὶ ὧν (1.6. τούτων οἷς) ἠπίστει πολλούς) ; see 
Fr. Rom. I. 2857. But the passage may be explained more simply thus: 
κατ. θεοῦ, κατ. οὗ ἐπίστ. (see above, 1 p. 164). The exposition proposed 
Bretschn. Lex. man. p. 220 is artificial in more respects than one. 

The mere incorporation of the antecedent into the relative clause with- 
out a change of case occurred : Matt. xxiv. 44 7 ὥρᾳ οὐ δοκεῖτε, ὃ vids τοῦ 
ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται (Gen. ii. 17 ; Ex. x. 28; xxxii. 34; Num. vi. 13; xxx. 6), 
Matt. vii. 2 ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε, μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν, Jno. xi. 6; Mark xv. 12 
(Heb. xiii. 11); Luke i. 4. Here belongs, too, Rom. iv. 17, see above. 
The Greeks generally inserted in the subsequent principal clause a cor- 
responding demonstrative, and separated also the relative by some word 
from the antecedent, Krii. 123. 

_ Attraction with omission of the (demonstrative) word which occasioned it: 


1 On ὑπακούειν εἰς particularly in Josephus, see Kypke, observatt. II. 167, though 
- exception can be taken to some of his examples. 


166 | § 24, THE RELATIVE PRONOUN. 


a. With the intervention of a preposition; as, Heb. v. 8 ἔμαθεν ἀφ᾽ ὧν 
150 ἔπαθε, i.e. ἀπὸ τούτων ἃ (dv) ἔπαθε, Rom. x. 14; Jno. vi. 29; xvii. 9; 1 Cor 
bth οἱ, Vil. 1 (Demosth. Euerg. 684 b. ἀγανακτήσασα ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐγὼ ἐπεπόνθειν, Plat. 
Cratyl. 880 ἃ. ; Xen. Απ.1, 9, 25; Arrian. Al. 4, 10, ὃ; Lysias II. 242 
ed. Auger.). See ὃ 23,2. And 
b. Without a preposition; as, Rom. xv. 18 οὐ einai λαλεῖν τί ὧν οὐ 
κατειργάσατο etc. Acts viii. 24; xxvi.16 (Soph. Phil. 1227 ; Oed. R. 855). 
179 Cf. § 23, 2; and the same place for attraction with an adverb of place 
(6. Kvii. 302 64). 


3. Sometimes the relative pronoun agrees in gender and number 
with the following noun which is predicate in the relative clause 
157 (ὃς... ἐστί) annexed by way of explanation; (this, too, is a 
ith el. species of attraction, Hm. Vig. 708): Mark xv. 16 τῆς αὐλῆς, ὅ ἐστι 
πραιτώριον, Gal. iii. 16 τῷ σπέρματί cov, ὅς ἐστι Χριστός, 1 Tim. 
iii. 15 ἐν οἴκῳ θεοῦ, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐκκλησία θεοῦ, Eph. vi. 17; i. 14; 
Phil. i. 28; Eph. iii. 13 μὴ ἐκκακεῖν ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσί μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, 
ἥτις ἐστὶ δόξα ὑμῶν (for 6), also 1 Cor. iii. 17 (where Mey., without 
4 reason, makes a difficulty about οἵτινες). Cf. also, Rey. iv. 5; 
v. 6, 8 var. On the other hand, Eph. i. 23 τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἥτις ἐστὶ 

τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, 1 Cor. iv. 17; Col. i. 24; ii. 17. 

Some have erroneously referred to this head Col. iii. 5 ἥτις ἐστὶν 
εἰδωλολατρεία (ἥτις for ἅτινα, viz. wédn) ; the reference is only to 
πλεονεξία (Huther in loc.). In Col. iii. 14 6, the better attested 
reading, appears to be a pure Neut. without reference to the 
gender of the preceding or the following noun. On Eph. ν. 5 see 
note 1. In Matt. xxvii. 33, and similar passages, 6 is quod sc. 
vocabulum. With regard to Heb. ix. 9 expositors are divided in 
opinion ; but most of them now refer ἥτις to ἡ πρώτη σκηνή verse 8, 
so that this passage does not fall under the above rule. Com- 
mentators differ still more widely in reference to Col. i. 27; but 
it is better to connect ὅς with ὁ πλοῦτος, as the principal noun, 
than with μυστήριον. 

It should seem, then, that the relative conforms to the gender 
of the following noun mainly when the latter is viewed as the 
principal subject ; consequently, when the speciic appellations are 
given of things, which, in the principal clause, were mentioned in 
general terms (Mark xv.; 1 Tim. iii., cf. Pausan. 2, 13, 4; Cic. pro 
Sest. 42, 91 domicilia coniuncta quas urbes dicimus), especially 
with names of persons (Gal. iii., ef. Cie. legg. 1,7, 22 animal, quem 
vocamus hominem), or where the relative should have been a 
Neut. used absolutely (Eph. iii.). On the other hand, the relative 





ectite ii τ 


824. THE RELATIVE PRONOUN. 167 


retains the gender of the noun in the principal clause, when the 
subordinate clause contains an explanatory amplification, a pred- 
icate of the principal object (as in Eph.i.; 1 Cor. iv.) ; (οἵ. Bremi 
on Nep. Thrasyb. 2). See, in general, G. Krii. as above, 90 ff., 
and, for the Latin, Zumpt, Grammat. § 372; Kritz, Sallust. I. 292. 

4. The relative appears >to be put for the interrogative in a 
direct question ,! Matt. xxvi. 50 ἑταῖρε, ἐφ᾽ ὃ (that is, ἐπὶ τί Aristoph. 
Lysistr. 1101) πάρει. This isan impropriety of declining Hellenism 180 
(Schaef. Demosth. V. 285), which Lob. Phryn. p. 57 has substan- 
tiated as respects other relative pronouns (Plat. Alcib. 1 p.110c.), 151 
and which cannot be thought very surprising when the affinity δὲ οὐ, 
between the words qui and quis is considered. This usage is 
unknown in classic prose. (In Plat. Men. 74d. recent editors, 
apparently without MS. authority, have substituted τέ. On Plat. 
rep. 8, 559 a. see Stallb.) But it is not necessary, on this account, 
to assume (with Mey.) that the above passage contains an aposi- 
opesis, or, with Fr., to take the sentence as an exclamation: vetus 158 
sodalis, ad qualem rem perpetrandam ades! By a question Jesus ith ed 
might effectively call the attention of Judas to the wickedness of 
his design. (It would be more allowable in Mark ix. 11 λέγοντες " 
ὅ,τι λέγουσιν οἱ γραμματεῖς ete. to regard 6,71, with Lchm., as put 
for ri (that is, διὰ ti), just as in Heliod. 4,16; 7, 14, quoted by 
Lob. as above, ὅςτις is used in a direct question. But 6,7. never 
occurs in the N. T. as an interrogative pronoun (certainly not 
Jno. vill. 25, see ὃ 54, 1), not even in an indirect question. As 
ὅτι immediately follows the words quoted above, it might easily 
have been written by mistake also before λέγουσι for τί, see Fr. 

If ὅτι, however, be the true reading, it should -rather be taken for 
ὅτι because, see ὃ 53, 10, 5, p. 456.) 


Note 1. It is peculiar to Paul to connect sometimes two, three, or more 
clauses by a repetition of the relative pronoun, even when it refers to 
different subjects; as, Col. i. 24f, 28, 29; Eph. iii. 11, 12; 1 Cor. ii. 7, 
cf. 1 Pet. ii. 22. Elsewhere the relative in the Sing. is thought to point 
to a series of nouns, and to be used, as it were, in a collective sense ; as, 
Eph. v. 5 ὅτι πᾶς πόρνος ἢ ἀκάθαρτος ἢ πλεονέκτης, ὅς ἐστιν εἰδωλο- 
λάτρης etc. Cf. Fritzsche de conformat. crit. p. 46. But this is arbitrary, 
and would suppose just such a forced explanation of Col. iii. 5 (see above). 

Note 2. The relative clause beginning with ὅς, ὅςτις, is usually placed 
after the clause containing the antecedent; where, however, the former 


1”Os in an indirect question occurs in Soph. Oed. R. 1068 ; see Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. 
IL. 372. Also cf. Passow, under the word. 


168 §25. THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN, 


clause is to be made prominent, it is put first (Krii. 123) ; as, 1 Cor. xiv. 37 
ἃ γράφω ὑμῖν ὅτι κυρίου ἐστίν, Heb. xii. 6 ὃν ἀγαπᾷ κύριος παιδεύει, Rom. vi. 3 
οἵτινες ἀπεθάνομεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, πῶς ἔτι ζήσομεν, Mark viii. 34, ete.; with 
a demonstrative in the second clause, Phil. iii. 7 ἅτινα ἣν μοι κέρδη, ταῦτα 
ἥγημαι ete. Jas. ii. 10; Jno. xxi. 25; xi. 45; Matt. v. 39 ; Luke ix. 50; 
Acts xxv. 18; 1 Cor. iv: 2; Heb. xiii. 11. 

Note 3. The Neut. 6 before a whole clause, in the sense of as ἕο etc. 
(like guod in Latin), occurs in Rom. vi. 10 ὃ δὲ ζῇ, ζῇ τῷ θεῷ, Gal. ii. 20 
ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ etc. cf. Mtth. II. 1063. In both passages, 

181 however, ὅ may also be taken for an objective case: quod vivit, vita, quam 
vivit. See Fr. on Rom. as above. 

Note 4. During the reign of empiricism it was believed by many expos- 
itors that ds is used in prose, besides the well-known cases (Mtth. 742 f.), 
for the demonstrative. Now, every beginner knows how to construe such 
passages ; e.g. 2 Cor. iv. 6 ὁ θεὸς ὃ εἰπὼν ἐκ σκότους φῶς λάμψαι, ὃς ἔλαμψεν 
ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις etc. In 1 Cor. ii. 9 and Rom. xvi. 27 the construction is 
anacoluthic. 


152 §25. THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN, AND THE INDEFINITE 
6th od. PRONOUN ΤΙΣ. 


1. Not only is the Interrogative Pronoun τίς, τί ordinarily used, 
even in indirect questions and after verbs of knowing, inquiring, 
159 etc., while ὅςτις, ὅ,τι is never so employed in the N. T. (Matt. xx. 22; 
tthe. Luke xxiii. 34 (Mark xiv. 36) Jno. x. 6; Acts xxi. 33; Rom. viii. 26; 
Col. i. 27, etc. ; cf. Xen. C. 1,1, 6; 1, 3,17; Mem. 1, 6, 4, ete. ; 
Hm. ad Aeschyl. p. 461; Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 823), but τέ, in 
particular, stands even in cases where the Greeks would certainly 
have used ὅ,τι, so that the interrogative is weakened apparently 
into the German was (Eng. what) ; as, Matt. x. 19 δοθήσεται ὑμῖν 
.-. τί λαλήσετε quod dicatis, Luke xvii. 8 ἑτοίμασον, τί δειπνήσω, 
para, quod comedam (not quid comedam, which in this connection 
would hardly be allowable in Latin), ef. Bhdy. 443. “Ο,τι occurs 
once, Acts ix.6. The transition to this usage of τί appears in the 
construction Mark vi. 36 ti φάγωσιν οὐκ ἔχουσι (Matt. xv. 32), 
for which with little difference of meaning ὅ,τε φάγωσιν οὐκ ἔχ. 
might have been employed, exactly as in Latin one may say either 
non habent quid comedant or non hab. quod com. (Ramshorn, lat. 
Gramm. 368). In the latter form of expression, ἔχειν and habere 
simply convey the notion of having or possessing (that which they 
might eat, they have not); the former comprises the notion of 
inquiry (accordingly, habeo quid must sometimes be directly trans- 


AND THE INDEFINITE PRONOUN ΤΙΣ. 169 


lated I know, what): inquiring what they should eat, they have 
nothing (to eat). Similarly Xen. C. 6,1, 48 οὐκ ἔχω τί μεῖζον εἴπω, 
Hell. 1, 6,5; Soph. Oed. C. 817 οὐκ ἔχω τί φῶ ; see, in general, 182 
Heindorf, Cic. N. Ὁ. p. 347. (The relative and interrogative are 
combined in 1 Tim. i. 7 μὴ νοοῦντες μήτε ἃ λέγουσι μήτε περὶ τίνων 
διαβεβαιοῦνται non intelligentes nec quod dicunt nec quid asserant. 
So in Greek authors are τί and ὅ,τε coupled in parallel clauses. 
Cf. Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 248; Il. 261; Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 641.) 


Schleusner, Haab (S. 82 f.), and others, refer to this usage many ex- 


‘amples which are of an entirely different nature; that is to say, in which 


a. τίς retains its interrogative force, and must be rendered in Latin by guis 
or quid, as Matt. vii. 9 ris ἔσται ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος etc., quis erit inter vos 
homo etc., cf. Matt. xii. 11; Luke xiv.5; xi. 5f.; or in which Ὁ. τις is not 
an interrogative, but the indefinite aliguzs, as 1 Cor. vii. 18 περιτετμημένος 
τις ἐκλήθη, μὴ ἐπισπάσθω, was any one called that is circumcised (1 suppose 
the case), let him not become uncircumcised; Jas. v.13 κακοπαθεῖ τις, 
προςευχέσθωβ. It is inaccurately asserted that τὶς is used here for εἴ τις. 
See appendix, § 64. In Jas. iii. 13 we must punctuate with Pott, Schott, 
and others, τίς σοφὸς ... ἐν ὑμῖν ; δειξάτω ete. Likewise Acts xiii. 25 may 
be read: τίνα pe ὑπονοεῖτε εἶναι; οὐκ εἰμὲ ἐγώ. Still, I think the usual 
acceptation of τίνα for ὅντινα not to be rejected; cf. Soph. El. 1167; 
Callim. epigr. 30, 2. 

Tis is used sometimes, when only two persons or things are spoken 153 
of, for the more precise πότερος (which never occurs in the N. T. as an Sth ed. 
adjective) ; as, Matt. ix. 5 τί γάρ ἐστιν εὐκοπώτερον ; xxi. 31 τίς ἐκ τῶν δύο 
ἐποίησε; Luke vii. 42; xxii. 27; Phil. i. 22. This occurs also in Greek 
authors (Stallb. Phileb. p. 168), who do not make so nice a distinction 160 
between ris and πότερος as the Romans do between their guis and uter The 
(though even as respects these last, exceptions are not wanting). 

It ought not to be asserted that in phrases such as Luke xv. 26 τί εἴη 
ταῦτα, Jno. vi. 9; Acts xvii. 20, the Sing. of the interrogative is put for 
the Plur. The Sing. τί sums up the plurality into one comprehensive 
whole: what (of what sort) are these things (hence also quid sibi volunt) ? 

On the other hand, in τίνα ἐστί etc. (cf. Heb. v. 12) there is a definite 
reference to the plurality: quae (qualia) sunt; cf. Plat. Theaet. 154 e.; 
155 c. (Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. 101; Weber, Dem. 192). 

The interrogative τί is sometimes placed at the end of the clause; as, 
Jno. xxi. 21 οὗτος δὲ τί; The same occurs frequently in the orators with 
mas; Weber, Demosth. 180 sq. 

In the N. T. and the Sept. ἕνα τί for what, wherefore, is also used as an 
interrogative ; as, Matt. ix. 4 ἵνα τί ὑμεῖς ἐνθυμεῖσθε πονηρά; xxvii. 46; 
Luke xiii. 7, ete. The expression is elliptical (as ut guid in Latin) for: 


iva τί γένηται (after a past tense γένοιτο), see Hm. Vig. 849 ; Lob. Soph. 183 
22 


170 §25. THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN, 


Aj. p. 107, and occurs not unfrequently in Greek authors, particularly the 
later, Plat. apol. 26d.; Aristoph. eccles. 718; Arrian. Epict. 1, 24a. (cf. 
Ruth i. 11, 21; Sir. xiv. 3; 1 Mace, ii. 7). 


2. The indefinite pronoun tis, Tv is joined to 

a. Abstract nouns, in order (among other purposes) to soften 
their import somewhat; as, Xen. Cyr. 9,1, 16 τούτους ἡγεῖτο ἢ 
ἀκρατείᾳ τινὶ ἢ ἀδικίᾳ ἢ ἀμελείᾳ amreivar—from a certain (a species 
of) incontinence or injustice, etc., Plut. Coriol. 14. ᾿Ηθποθ, when 
an unusual or a too bold figure of speech is used; as, Jas. i. 18 
ἀπαρχή τις quaedam (quasi) primitiae, Bttm. I. 579; Schoem. 
Plutarch. Agis p. 73. 

b. Numerals, when the number is to be taken approxiinately 
only, and not precisely ; as, Acts xxiii. 23 δύο τινάς some two 
(about two), xix. 14, see Schaef. Demosth. III. 269; Mtth. 1080. 

c. Adjectives of quality or quantity, for rhetorical emphasis; as, 
Heb. x. 27 φοβερά τις ἐκδίκησις terribilis quaedam (Klotz on Cie. 
Lael. p. 142, and Nauck in Jahn’s Jahrb. Bd. 52 8. 183f.), a 
positively (or very) terrible punishment (cf. Lucian. philop. 8 
φοβερόν τι θέαμα, D.S. 5, 39 ἐπίπονός τις Bios, Aeschin. dial. 3, 17 ; 
Xen. Cyr. 1, 6,14; 6,4,7; Heliod. 2, 23,99; Lucian. dial. m. 
5,1; Plutarch. Phoe. ο. 13, cf. Boisson. Nicet. p. 268); hence Acts 
Vill. 9 μέγας τις some great personage (of a man Xen. Eph. 3, 2; 
Athen. 4, 21, etc.). In these instances tis is equivalent to the 
emphatic a (Germ. ein: das war eine Freude,.das ist ein Mann) : 
that was a joy (a great joy), that is a man (a clever man); ef. 
Acts v. 80 λέγων εἶναί twa ἑωυτόν pretending to be somebody (of 

154 importance) ; see Bhdy. 440; Krii. 129. To this corresponds 

bth el guidam in Latin, and, where no substantive or adjective is to be 
made prominent, aliquis; as, aliquem esse Cic. Att. 8,15. (On 

161 the other hand, πᾶς τις does not occur in the N.T. In 1 Cor. ix. 22 

ithe. some would insert it, after a few authorities, instead of πάντως 
τινάς, see Boisson. Eunap. p. 127; but without necessity, and even 
without critical probability. In Jno. xi. 49 εἷς tus unus aliquis 
may have been used for emphasis.) 


In Matt. xx. 20 the Neut. τι aliquid may be used with emphasis for 
aliquid magni (see Fr. in loc.), but probably not. On the other hand it 
must be taken so in the phrase εἶναί τι Gal. ii. 6; vi. 3, ete. (the well-known 
aliquid esse in Latin). The emphasis depends on the connection of the 
passage (cf. Hm. Vig. 731), and is therefore of a rhetorical description. 
In classic Greek ri λέγειν, τὲ πράσσειν, are especially frequent. 

Note. When joined to a substantive, rls may stand either before or after 


§ 26. HEBRAISMS IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN PRONOUNS. 171 


it; as, tls ἀνήρ and ἀνήρ τις Acts iii. 2; v.1; x.1. The latter order is the 
more usual one in the N.T. On the other hand, it has been doubted 184 
(Mtth. S. 1081) whether ris can stand at the very beginning of a propo- 
sition; yet Hm. emend. rat. p. 95 makes no objection to this. In the N.T. 
compare 1 Tim. γ.. 24 τινῶν ἀνθρώπων ai ἁμαρτίαι πρόδηλοί εἰσιν ... τισὶν δὲ 

etc. Acts xvii. 18; xix.31. The abbreviated forms του, τῳ (Bttm. I. 801) 

are not used in the N.T.; they have been unwarrantably introduced in 

1 Cor. xv. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 6. 


§ 26. HEBRAISMS IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN PRONOUNS. 


1. Instead of οὐδείς, μηδείς, we find sometimes in the N.T., 
according to the Hebrew idiom (Leusden, diall. p. 107; Vorst, 
Hebr. p. 529 sq. ; Gesen. Lg. 831), od (μὴ) ... πᾶς, the verb being 
always connected directly with the negative ; as, Matt. xxiv. 22 οὐκ 
ἂν ἐσώθη πᾶσα σάρξ, Rom. iii. 20 ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται 
πᾶσα σάρξ, Luke i. 87 οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ πᾶν ῥῆμα, 

1 Cor. i. 29 ὅπως μὴ καυχήσηται πᾶσα σάρξ, etc., cf. also Rev. xxi. 27 
ov μὴ εἰςέλθῃ εἰς αὐτὴν πᾶν κοινόν, Acts x. 14 οὐδέποτε ἔφωγον πᾶν 
κοινόν, Rev. ix. 4 (Judg. xiii. 4; Susan. 27). 

On the other hand, od πᾶς (μὴ πᾶς) without an intervening 
word denotes (like non omnis) not every; as, 1 Cor. xv. 89 od 
πᾶσα σὰρξ ἡ αὐτὴ σάρξ, Matt. vii. 21 οὐ πᾶς ὁ λέγων κύριε, κύριε, 
εἰςελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασ. ... ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ποιῶν, etc. not every one that 
calls me (readily) Lord, but (among such as do so) only he who 
doeth the will etc.;' not the mere saying ‘ Lord’ fits for entering 155 
the kingdom of heaven, but etc., Acts x. 41. So in the Plur. οὐ ὕ ὦ. 
πάντες non omnes Matt. xix. 11; Rom. ix. 6; x. 16. 

This distinction is founded in the nature of the case: In the {62 
former instance ov negatives the notion of the verb (something 1 ob 
negative is asserted in reference to πᾶς : every man ... will fail to 
be justified ; the predicate, will not be justified, applies to every 
man, i.e. no man will be justified) ;2 but in the latter case οὐ 
negatives the notion of πᾶς. On the whole, however, this mode 185 


1 IT cannot concur in Fr.’s explanation (see also Priliminar. §. 72 f.), according to 
which οὐ is here to be connected with the verb, so as to make the sense, no Lord-sayer. 
The second clause ἀλλ᾽ 6 ποιῶν by no means excludes saying Lord; ποιεῖν τὸ θέλημα 
τοῦ πατρός μου involves, on the contrary, the acknowledgment of Jesus as Lord. 

2 Gesenius, as above, merely sets down this linguistic phenomenon, without troubling 
himself to explain it. Hwald, on the contrary (S. 657), has at least indicated its proper 
acceptation. See even Drusius, ad Gal. ii. 16, and Beza on Matt. xxiv. 22; Rom. iii. 20. 


aay 


Gesenius’s distinction between οὐ πᾶς and μὴ πᾶς I haye never comprehended. 


172 § 26. HEBRAISMS IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN PRONOUNS 


of expression is rare, and, as more expressive, appears to have 
been purposely adopted in, the passages in question, (which are 
mostly aphoristic sayings). It is confined mostly to the rendering 
of the O. T. -wa-b>; whereas the LXX. as translators have it fre- 
quently.!. (What Georgi, Vind. p. 817, adduces to show that this 
construction is pure Greek, is wholly irrelevant. In all the pas- 
sages he quotes, was belongs to the substantive in the sense of whole, 

as μηδὲ τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον, or full, complete, πᾶσα ἀνάγκη.) 
Strictly this Hebraism should be limited to the above expréssion 
ov (μή) ... πᾶς ; for clauses with was... od (μήν) ὃ contain for 
the most part nothing foreign to the classic idiom,‘ or the reason 
is obvious why the writer made choice of this particular turn of 
expression. 1 Jno. ii. 21 πᾶν ψεῦδος ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἔστιν all 
Jalsehood (every lie) is not of the truth any Greek might have 
written. Juno. iii. 16 ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων eis αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται, 
ἀλλ᾽ etc. (var.) that every one believing on himi may not perish, but 
156 etc. In Eph. v. 5 πᾶς πόρνος ἢ ἀκάθαρτος ἢ πλεονέκτης... οὐκ ἔχει 
δι el. κληρονομίαν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, the apostle had perhaps 
_ at the beginning of the sentence an affirmative predicate in mind 
163 (Ezek. xliv. 9). Only in Eph. iv. 29; Rev. xviii. 22, and perhaps 
Τὴ el. Rey. xxii. 8 οὐδέν would have been more agreeable to a Greek ear. 


186 In Matt. x. 29 (Luke xii. 6) occurs ἕν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐ πεσεῖται (vel) unum 
non, ne unum quidem (contrasted with δύο : two for an assarion, and not 
even one, etc.) Matt. vy. 18. This construction (with a negative) occurs 


1 For instance, Exod. xii. 16, 44; xx. 10; Deut. v. 14; xx. 16; Judg. xiii. 4; 2 Sam. 
xv. 11; Ps. xxxiii. 11; exlii. 2; Ezek. xxxi 14 (Tob. iv: 7,19; xii. 11). Quite as 
frequently, however, they use the good Greek od ... οὐδείς (οὐδέν), Exod. x. 15; Deut. 
viii. 9; Josh. x. 8; Prov. vi. 853; xii. 21; or just the simple οὐδείς, Josh. xxiii. 9. 

2 If Schleusner means to prove from Οἷς. Rose. Amer. 27 and ad famil. 2, 12 that non 
omnis is equivalent to nullus, he cannot have looked at these passages. 

8 That is, in the Singular ; for in the Plural it is the current mode of expression in 
classic Greek also. Under this head comes the passage which, to explain the above 
Hebraism, Weiske, pleon. p. 58, has quoted from Plat. Phaed. 91 6. πότερον, ἔφη, πάντας 
τοὺς ἔμπροσθεν λόγους οὐκ ἀποδέχεσθε, ἢ τοὺς μέν, τοὺς δ᾽ οὔ ; do you receive not — i.e. 
reject — all, or do you receive some and reject others? How otherwise should this (with 
simplicity) have been expressed? In the Sept. cf. Num. xiv. 28 ; Josh. xi. 13; Ezek, 
ΧΧΧΙ. 14; Dan. xi. 87. 

4 When a writer attaches the negative to the verb at the beginning of his sentence 
(οὐ δικαιωθήσεται), he has already, in advance, the subject in his mind (mas), and might 
therefore employ οὐδείς. But if he begins with πᾶς, either he has not decided whether 
to use an affirmative or a negative verb, or it seems to him more suitable to make a 
negative assertion in reference to every one (was ὃ πιστεύων... οὐ μὴ ἀπόληται) than an 
affirmative in reference to no one. The statement, no believer shall perish, assumes as 
it were an apprehension which the speaker means to obviate. 4 


§ 26. HEBRAISMS IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN PRONOUNS. 173 


also in Greek authors; as, Dion. H. comp. 18 (V. 122) μίαν οὐκ ἂν εὕροι 
τις σελίδα etc., antiqg. II. 980,10 pia τε οὐ κατελείπετο (according to 
Schaef.’s emendation), Plut. Gracch. 9, see Schaef. on this passage and 
on Dionys. compos. p. 247; Erfurdt, Soph. Antig. p.121. From the Hebr. 
cf. Exod. x. 19; Isa. xxxiv.16. This construction cannot be called either 
a Hellenism or a Hebraism; it is everywhere designed to give greater 
emphasis than resides in ovdeis’ (properly the same in signification, but 
weakened by usage). 

Luke i. 37 οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ θεῷ πᾶν ῥῆμα nothing, no thing (cf. "33 
and in Greek ἔπος), is doubtless taken from Gen. xviii. 14 of the Sept. 
Matt. xv. 23 οὐκ ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῇ λόγον is quite simple: he answered her not 
a word (there is no need of ἕνα here; just as we, too, do not emphasize the 
α). The Greeks, too, could employ the same mode of expression; and 
its occurrence in 1 Kings xviii. 21 does not prove it to be a Hebraism. 


2. The one, the other is expressed sometimes by εἷς... καὶ εἷς, 

a. In antithesis, Matt. xx. 21; xxiv. 40; xxvii. 38; xvii.4; Mark 
x. 87; Jno. xx. 12; Gal. iv. 22 (but in Luke xvii. 34 ὁ εἷς... ὁ 
ἕτερος, cf. xvi. 13; xviii. 10; Aesop. 119 de Fur.) (so in Heb. » 
omy Exod. xvii. 12; Lev. xii. 8; xv. 15; 1 Sam. x. 3, ete.), for 
which Greek authors use εἷς μέν, εἷς δέ or εἷς μέν, ὁ δέ; see Fischer, 
ad Leusden. diall. p. 85; Mtth. 742. What Georgi, Vind. p. 159 sq., 
and Schwarz, Comment. p. 421, quote as parallel to the N. T. 
expression, are more properly enumerations, or calculations of a 
sum total, e.g. eight, one... one... one etc. 

b. In reciprocal statements ; as, 1 Thess. v. 11 οἰκοδομεῖτε εἷς τὸν 
ἕνα, 1 Cor.iv.6. This is rather Aramaic (Hoffmann, Gramm. Syr. 


p. 330) — hence the Peschito also puts a double me for ἀλληλ. 


(Matt. xxiv. 10; Jno. xiii. 35) — though not at variance with 
Greek syntax, Her. 4, 50 ἕν πρὸς ἕν συμβάλλειν, Lucian. conser. 
hist. 2 ὡς οὖν ἕν, φασίν, évi παραβαλεῖν, asin. 54. Compare also 
the phrase ὃν ἀνθ᾽ ἑνός (Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 339; Bhdy. Dionys. 
perieg. p. 853) and Kypke II. 339. 


As cuneus cuneum trudit, some translate Matt. xii. 26 ὃ σατανᾶς τὸν 157 
- σατανᾶν ἐκβάλλει the one Satan casts out the other; but note the Art. 6... θὲ} οὐ, 
τὸν. On the other hand, cf. Luke xi. 17. 164 


The Heb. construction, a man ... to his friend or brother, is imitated by "4 


1 Hence likewise οὐδὲ εἷς are conjoined, nemo quisquam, nemo unus (Matt. xxvii. 14 
οὐδὲ ἐν ῥῆμα ne unum quidem, Jno. i. 3; Rom. iii. 10; 1 Cor. vi. 5) Hm. Vig. 467; Weber, τ΄ 
Dem. 501 (Xen. Cyr. 2, 3,9; 4,1, 14). In the Sept. this occurs frequently (particu- _ 
larly for 75S ND), Exod. xiv. 28; Num. xxxi. 49. Cf. besides οὐ... ποτέ 2 Pet. i. 21. 

? Nor will any discriminating student think ἕνα necessary in the above passage 
because εἷς is elsewhere expressed (Matt. xxi. 24 ἐρωτήσω ὑμᾶς κἀγὼ λόγον ἕνα). 


174 § 27. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS. 


187 the LXX. in Gen. xi. 8; xiii. 11; Judg. vi. 29; Ruth iii. 14; Jer. ix. 20 
etc. but does not occur in the N. T.; ef. however, from Sept., Heb. viii. 11 
οὗ μὴ διδάξωσιν ἕκαστος τὸν πλησίον (better πολίτην) σὐτοῦ καὶ ἕκαστος τὸν 
ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ. 

As to the Hebraistic cireumlocution for the pronoun every by the repe- 
tition of the noun, e.g. ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ, see § 54, 1, p. 463. 


CHAPTER III. 


THE NOUN. 


§ 27. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS. 


1. A Masculine noun in the Singular, with the Article, is often 
used collectively to denote the whole class; as, Jas. ii. 6 ἠτιμάσατε 
τὸν πτωχόν (Plur. in 1 Cor. xi. 22), v.6; Rom. xiv. 1; 1 Pet. 
iv. 18; Matt. xii. 35. This construction is especially common with 
national names ; as, ὁ ᾿Ιουδαῖος Rom. iii. 1 (so Romanus for Romani 
frequently) Markland, Eurip. suppl. v. 659. The Singular in all ᾿ 
such cases presents the distinctive characteristic more exclusively 
and more forcibly than the Plural, — designating, as the latter does, 
a multitude of individuals. 

Similar to this construction is the use of the Singular to express, 
in reference to a plurality, an object which belongs to each of the 
individuals ; as, 1 Cor. vi. 19 ὅτε τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν ναὸς τ. ay. πνεύ- 
ματος (according to the best Codd.) ; Mark viii. 17 πεπωρωμένην 
ἔχετε τὴν καρδίαν (Jas. iii. 14; Luke i. 66; 2 Pet. ii. 14, etc.) ; 
Matt. xvii. 6 ἔπεσαν ἐπὶ πρόςωπον αὐτῶν (Lukeii. 31; 2 Cor. 
iii. 18 ; viii. 24) ;1 Rev. vi. 11 ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς στολὴ λευκή (Luke 
xxiv. 4; Acts i. 10?); Eph. vi. 14 περιζωσάμενοι τὴν ὀσφὺν 
ὑμῶν etc. This distributive Singular, as it may be called, is fre- 

188 quent in classic Greek; as, Xen. A. 4, 7,16 εἶχον κνημῖδας καὶ 
κράνη κι μαχαίριον ... δόρυ ete. Cyr. 4, 3,11; Eurip. Cycl. 225 ; 
Thue. 8, 22; 4,4; 6,58; Pol. 3,49, 12; Ael. an. 5,4; cf. Cic. 
Rab. 4,113; Sen. ep. 87. In the Sept. cf. Gen. xlviii. 12; Lev. 
x. 6; Judg. xiii. 20; Lament. ii. 10; 1 Chron. xxix. 6; see also 


1 The phrases ἀπὸ or πρὸ mposémov αὐτῶν or ὑμῶν, κατὰ mp. πάντων etc. Luke ii. 81; 
Acts vii. 45; Exod. xxxiv. 11; Deut. iii. 18; vii. 19; viii. 20, ete., I should prefer, 
however, not to refer to this head, as they had already become adverbial. 


827. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS. 175 


testam. patr. p. δ6δ.1 Τὴ the N.T. the Plural is the usual con- 158 
struction in this case (also Luke xxiv. 5; Acts 1. 10). See in Shed 


general Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 264; Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 158. Se 


The collective use of the Singular is not to be extended beyond its 
natural bounds. In 1 Cor. vi. 5 διακρῖναι ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ 
does not stand for τῆς ἀδελφότητος ; moreover, nothing would be gained in 


. this way, since ἀνὰ μέσον between requires not a collective whole, but single 


individuals (the case is different in Matt. xiii. 25). It ought to have run 
ἀνὰ μέσον ἀδελφοῦ καὶ ἀδελφοῦ (Gen. xxiii. 15), or at least τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ 
(see Grotius), cf. Pol. 10, 48, 1; or the construction is a concise inaccuracy. 
Meyer’s explanation takes for granted also an expression which is inac- 
curate as it is without example. 


2. Conversely, the Plural of class (mase. or fem.) is used 
although the predicate refers primarily to only one individual, 
when the writer wishes to keep the thought somewhat vague ; as, 
Matt. ii. 20 τεθνήκασιν οἱ ζητοῦντες τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ παιδίου (Herod 
the Great alone is meant, vs. 19), ef. Exod. iv.19. See Aesch. Prom. 
67; Eurip. Hec. 403; Aeschin. adv. Timarch. 21 and Bremi in loc. 
Porson, Eur. Phoen. p. 36; Reisig, Conject. in Aristoph. p. 58, and 
C. L. Roth, gramm. quaest. e C. Tacito. Norimb. 1829, 4to. § 1. 

On the other hand, in Matt. ix. 8 ἐδόξασαν τὸν θεὸν τὸν δόντα 
ἐξουσίαν τοιαύτην τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, the reference certainly is 
not to Christ alone, but the expression must be taken as actually 
universal, like Heb. ix. 23. In of λῃσταί Matt. xxvii. 44 a different 
tradition from Luke xxiii. 89 must be recognized. Lastly, in 1 Cor. 
xv. 29 ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν cannot easily be referred to (the dead) 
Christ (for then it would have been εἰς τοὺς νεκρούς), but (unbap- 
tized) dead men are meant. 


The expression τὸ εἰρημένον ἐν τοῖς προφήταις Acts xiii. 40; Jno. vi. 45 


, (ἂν βιβλίῳ τῶν προφητῶν Acts vii. 42) is a general form of quotation, like 


in Paul’s Epistles, etc., employed when one does not wish, or is not able, 

to indicate the passage precisely. Essentially similar is Matt. xxiv. 26 189 
ἐν τοῖς ταμείοις, opposed to ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, cf. Liv. 1, 3 Silvius casu quodam 

in selvis natus. 

In Matt. xxi. 7 ἐπάνω αὐτῶν probably refers to ἱμάτια. There would, 
however, be no intrinsic absurdity in referring it to the two animals, any 
more than the expression ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὄνον καὶ πῶλον, verse 5, is absurd. 

We also say, loosely, he sprang from the horses, though only one of the 
team, the saddled horse, is meant. 


1 In 1 Thess. i. 7 ὥςτε γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς τύπον πᾶσι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν, the Singular is 
used quite regularly, as Paul had in view the church as a whole. 1 Cor. x. 6,11; 1 Pet. 
v. 3 are passages of a different kind, where the Singular would be surprising. 


‘ 


176 § 27. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS. 


Quite erroneously has the Plural ἐπιστολαί in 1 Cor. xvi. 3 been taken 
for the Singular (Heumann in loc.). Though this Plural may be thus 
used of a single letter (Schaef. Plutarch. V. 446 ; Poppo, Thue. 1, 132), 
yet here the words δ᾽ ἐπιστολῶν are certainly to be joined to πέμψω ; and 
the sending of several letters to different persons is in itself not at all 
unlikely. 


106 ὃ. Not a few nouns which are used by us ordinarily in the 
ith el. Singular, were employed exclusively, or at least predominantly, in 
159 the Plural; this is owing to the objects denoted by them having — 
‘from a general or from a Grecian or a Biblical point of view—some 
sensible or ideal manifoldness or comprehensiveness (Krii. 9f.) ; 
as, αἰῶνες Heb. i. 2 world (n-adiz), οὐρανοί coeli (Schneider, lat. Gr. 
II. 476) cf. 2 Cor. xii. 2, τὰ ἅγια the sanctuary Heb. viii. 2; ix. 8, 
12, etc., dvatorai, δυσμαί (Hast, West) Matt. viii. 11; xxiv. 27 
(Plato, def. 411 Ὁ. ; epin. 990a.; D.S. 2,48; Dio. C. 987, 32; 
Lucian. peregr. 39), τὰ δεξιά, ἀριστερά, εὐώνυμα, the right, the left 
(frequently), Ovpac( fores, folding-door) Acts v. 19; Jno. xx. 19 
Cin Greek also πύλαι, but θύραι is a regular Plural in Acts xvi. 26f.; 
Matt. xxiv. 83), κόλποι bosom Luke xvi. 23 (22 Sing.) cf. Pausan. 
6,1,2; Ael. 18, 31; also τὰ ἱμάτια of a (single) upper-garment, 
Jno. xix. 23; xiii.4; Acts xviii. 6; the names of festivals ἐγκαίνια, 
yevéota, ἄζυμα (Παναθήναια, Saturnalia, Poppo, Thue. III. TV. 20), 
also γάμοι marriage Matt. xxii. 2; Luke xii. 86 (ef. Tob. xi. 20) ; 
likewise ὀψώνια (Germ. Léhnung, soldier’s pay) Rom. vi. 23 (Fr. 
Rom. I. 428), and ἀργύρια (pieces of money, Shekel-pieces) Matt. 
xxvi. 15; xxviii. 12. 

When the names of countries or cities are Plural, this is due 
to their consisting (originally) of several provinces (as Galliae) 
or settlements ; as, “A@jva, Πάταρα, Φίλυιπποι, probably also τὰ 
“Ιεροσόλυμα.1 : 

Lastly, nouns denoting a feeling, disposition, or state, express 
in the Plural the modes or acts in which the feeling, etc. manifests 
itself; as, 1 Pet. ii. 1 ἀποθέμενοι πᾶσαν κακίαν ... kK. ὑποκρίσεις 
κ. φθόνους kK. πάσας καταλαλιάς, 2.Cor. xii. 20 ἔρις, ζῆλος, 
θυμοί, ἐριθεῖαι, Katararsal, ψιθυρισμοί, φυσιώσεις, 
ἀκαταστασίαι, 2 Cor. xi. 28 ἐν θανάτοις πολλάκις, Eph. vi. 

190 11; Gal. ν. 20; 1 Pet. ἵν. 8; Jas. ii. 1 (2 Cor. ix. 6) Jude 13; 1 Cor. 
vii. 2; Fr. Rom. II. 6; Kritz, Sallust. I. 76. So οἰκτιρμοί, van 
is more common than the Singular (only in Col. iii. 12 var.). 
Here belongs also Eph. ii. 8 θέλήματα τῆς σαρκός. See, in general, 


1 Cf. Nobbe, schedae Ptolem. I. 22. 





§27. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS. 177 


Jacobs, Act. philol. Monac. I. 154 sq.; Schoem. Plutarch. Agis 
p. 75sq.; Stallb. Plat. rep. 11. 368; Heinichen, Euseb. ΠῚ. 18 sq. ; 
Bhdy. 62 f. 


The Plural αἵματα Jno. i. 13 of blood as generative matter, has a direct 
parallel only in Eurip. Ion. 693 in the poetic language ; but it is as easily 
accounted for in reference to a fluid as τὰ ὕδατα and τὰ γάλακτα Plat. legg. 

10, 887 ἃ. In Rey. xviii. 24 αἵματα is a real Plural, and accordingly does 

not come under the above rule ;— a remark true also of ai γραφαί, τὰ ἱερὰ 
γράμματα, at διαθῆκαι Rom. ix. 4; Eph. ii. 12 (the covenants which God 

in patriarchal times repeatedly renewed with Abraham, Jacob, through 
Moses, cf. Wisd. xii. 21; 2 Mace. viii. 15). Similar is ἐπαγγελίαι in Heb. 

vii. 6. A Hebraistic Plur. majest. is not to be assumed in these words, 

nor in Jno. ix. 3; 2 Cor. xii. 1, 7 or Heb. ix. 23, where the statements are 167 
genera). Τὰ σάββατα when only the weekly day of rest is meant, Matt. ‘1th ed. 
xii. 1; Luke iv. 16, etc., is either a transfer of the Aramaean form xmaw, 

or framed after the analogy of names of festivals. More easily might ἅγια 
ἁγίων, Heb. ix. 3, denoting the most holy place of the temple at Jerusalem, 

be pronounced a Plur. excell., unless, with Erasmus and others, we prefer 

the accentuation ἁγίᾳ ἁγίων (cf. δειλαία δειλαίων Soph. E]. 839). However, 160 
though this portion of the Israelitish sanctuary is mentioned in the 6th ed, 
Pentateuch under the designation τὸ ἅγιον τῶν ἁγίων (Exod. xxvi. 33; 
Num. iy. 4), cf. Joseph. Antt. 3, 6, 4, yet in 1 Kings viii. 6 the holy of holies 

is actually called ra ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων. Cf. the Latin penetralia, adyta (Vir. 
Aen. 2, 297). 

In reference to Phil. ii. 6 τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, where ἴσα is used adverbially, 
compare the classic usage Iliad. 5,71 ; Odyss. 1, 432; 15,520; Soph. Oed. 
R. 1179; Thue. 3, 14; Philostr. Ap. 8, 26,ete. See Reisig, Oed. Col. 526. 


4. The Dual of nouns—except the numeral δύο ---- (065 not 
occur in the N. T., but in its stead only the Plural is used (with 
δύο in Matt. iv. 18; xviii. 9; xxvi. 37; Jno. iv. 40; Acts xii. 6, ete.); 
likewise in later Greek, generally, the dual-form is rare. Only in 
Rey. xii. 14 τρέφεται καιρὸν καὶ καιροὺς καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦ does the 
Plural of itself denote two years; this, however, is an imitation of 
the Chaldee 239 Dan. vii. 25 in the Greek versions, and in this 
connection it may be remarked that the Chaldee regularly has no 
dual (my Chald. Grammat. 8.77). Accordingly the Plural, placed 
between one year and half a year, was allowably made to signify 
two. In later Greek, χρόνος, χρόνοι, came more and more to 


signify year, years. See also Evang. apoc. p. 60, 61; Epiphan. 
Mon. 29, 28. 


Bornem. supposes he has found a trace of the Dual in Acts xv. 12 in 191 


the reading ἐξηγουμένω (v is added above the line) of one Cod. from which 
33 


178 § 27. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS. 


Taf. notes the reading ἐξηγούμενοι, and joyously hails the discovery of this 
number ! i 
5. The Neuter, sing. or plur., is sometimes employed to denote 

a person, when the writer purposely expresses himself in general 
terms ; as, 2 Thess. 11, 6 τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε (T ὁ κατέχων), Heb. 
Vil. 7 τὸ ἔλαττον ὑπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος εὐλογεῖται. (Theodor. in loc.), 
[Matt. xviii. 11], Luke i. 85 ; 1 Cor. i. 27, 28 τὰ μωρὰ τ. κόσμου... 
τὰ ἀσθενῆ, τὰ ἐξουθενημένα (26 οἱ σοφοί), Ino. vi. 87; 1,.Jno. v. 4 
ef. 1; (1 Cor. xi. 5, but not Col. i. 20; Heb. vii. 19; Jno. iii. 6; 
see the more recent expositors. In Rom. xi. 32 the established 
reading is τοὺς πάντας). Similarly, Thuc. 3,11 τὰ κράτιστα ἐπὶ 
τοὺς ὑποδεεστέρους Evverriyyov, Xen. A. 7, 8, 11 τὰ μὲν φεύγοντα καὶ 
ἀποδιδράσκοντα ἡμεῖς ἱκανοὶ ἐσόμεθα διώκειν καὶ μαστεύειν, ἢν δέ τις 
ἀνθίστηται etc., Poppo, Thuc. 1.104; Seidler, Eurip. Troad. p. 61 ; 
Kritz, Sall. II. 69. 

168 6. The Neuter scems to be employed for the Feminine in Mark 

ἸΔ οἱ xii. 28 ποία ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη πάντων (for πασῶν, which is a 
correction). But πάντων has no relation to the gender of the 
noun, but is equivalent to the general expression omniwm (rerum) ; 
ef. Lucian. piscat. 18 ula πάντων hye ἀληθὴς φιλοσοφία (according 
to the common reading; otherwise πάντως), Thuc. 4, 52 τάς τε 
ἄλλας πόλεις Kal πάντων μάλιστα τὴν "Αντανδρον, see d’Orville, 
Charit. p. 549 sq.; Porson, Eur. Phoen. 121; Fr. Mr. 1. ο. 

161 On the other hand, we cannot say with d’Orville (p. 292 sq.) 

hed. that in Acts ix. 87, χούσαντες αὐτὴν ἔθηκαν, the masc. Aovc. is used 
for λούσασαι because the washing of corpses was the business of 
women. The writer expresses himself in the most general terms 
(Hm. Soph. Trachin. p. 39) and without reference to persons: 
they washed and laid. Had Luke intended to refer to that custom 
with historical precision, he would have employed more definite 
language. Of. Xen. M. 2, 7,2 συνεληλύθασιν ... ἀδελφαί τε καὶ 
ἀδελφιδαὶ καὶ ἀνεψιαὶ τοσαῦται, ὥςτ᾽ εἶναι ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ τεσσαρακαίδεκα 
τοὺς ἐλευθέρους the free (free persons) were fourteen, where 
the Masculine is used though by the free (as it appears) females 
are to be understood. Suet. Ner. 33 acceptum a quadam Locusta, 
venenariorum inclita, (Luke xxii. 58, cf. Matt. xxvi. 71 — the 
accounts are different; see Mey.) 


Neither is the Masculine used for the Feminine in the Sept. in Gen. 

192 xxiii. 3 ἀνέστη ᾿Αβραὰμ ἀπὸ τοῦ νεκροῦ αὐτοῦ... 4 θάψω τὸν νεκρόν 
μου (15), though Sarah is meant; nor in the History of Susann. 61 ἐποίησαν 
αὐτοῖς ὃν τρόπον ἐπονηρεύσαντο τῷ πλησίον, though the reference is to 


2 παν τ ee EEE eee 








§ 28, THE CASES IN GENERAL. 179 


Susanna. In the former case we Germans also say: er begrub seinen 
Todten (similarly in Soph. Antig. 830 φθιμένῳ ---- vulg. φθιμένᾳ --- τοῖς ἰσοθέοις 
ἔγκληρα λαχεῖν μέγα), and in Greek corpse is always 6 νεκρός, never in the 
Feminine ; see, further, Hm. Soph. Antig. p. 114, 176. 

Note 1. In Rom. xi. 4, containing a quotation from the Old Test. (1 Kings 
xix. 18), we find the Fem. ἡ Βάαλ (Hos. ii. 8; Zeph. i. 4), probably with 
no secondary contemptuous meaning as the feminine forms of names of 
false gods are said to be used in Arabic and Rabbinic (?), see Gesen. in 
Rosenm. Repertor. I. 139 and Tholuck in loc., and, on the other side, Fr. 
Rom. II. 442; but Paul, quoting from memory, might easily write 7 Βάαλ 
as he had occasionally found it in the Sept. (yet at present the Codd. vary), 
though in this very passage the Sept. has τῷ Βάαλ. Riickert in loc. is in 
perplexity as often elsewhere. After all, it was matter of indifference 
whether the male or the female Baal was mentioned. Theile tries to 
explain by the usage of the Sept. μοιχαλίδες in the general address in Jas. 
iv. 4; but see, on the other hand, de Wette. The omission of the words 
potxot καὶ has no decisive external authority in its favor; and it would be 
carrying deference to the (other) principal Codd. too far, to refuse to 
admit errors of transcription even when similar words come together. 

Note 2. A noun of any gender, taken merely as a word, is joined, of 
course, to the Neuter Art.; as, Gal. iv. 25 τὸ “Ayap, the (word) Hagar. 169 
On the other hand, the Fem. should seem to be used for the Neut. in ἡ ith ed 
οὐαί Rey. ix. 12; xi. 14; probably, however, some such word as θλῖψις or 
ταλαιπωρία floated before the mind of the writer. 

Note 3. On the adverbial use of a Fem. Adjective, as ἰδίᾳ, κατ᾽ ἰδίαν, ete., 
see § 54, 1, p. 463. 


§ 28. THE CASES IN GENERAL. 162 
6th ed. 
1. Foreigners found no difficulty in comprehending in the gen- 


eral the respective import of the Greek cases (Hm. de emend. rat. 
I. 137 sqq.; Bhdy. S. 74 ff.).1. And even the Jews were able to 
express in their language plainly enongh the common relations 193 
of case, although without the aid of terminations ; the mode of 
denoting the Genitive in particular, approximated in Aramaic to 
that of the Occidental tongues. It remained, however, a matter 
of more difficulty to learn to catch the impressions made upon a 
Greek by the oblique cases in all their manifold and sometimes 
far-extended applications. Such a use of cases, moreover, did not 


1 A monograph on this subject is, J. A. Hartung, iiber die Casus, ihre Bildung-und-em— 
Bedeut. in der griech. τι. lat. Sprache. Erlang. 1831, 8vo. (Rumpe, iib. ΣΝ Ἂς 
in Bezichung auf die griech. Sprache. Halle 1845, 8γο.) j ‘ an) 


Nea 


| 2 tetapneaninameaeaeen, 


180 § 28. THE CASES IN GENERAL. 


+ 

accord with the graphic and explicit phraseology of Orientals; 
and we find, accordingly, that in the N. T., agreeably to the 
Eastern idiom and sometimes in direct imitation of it, preposi- 
tions are frequently employed where in classic Greek the simple 
cases would have sufficed even in prose; for instance, διδόναι ἐκ, 
ἐσθίειν ἀπό, μετέχειν ἐκ for διδόναι, ἐσθίειν, μετέχειν τινός (cf. 8 30), 
πολεμεῖν μετά τινος for τινί, κατηγορεῖν and ἐγκαλεῖν κατά τινος 
(Luke xxiii. 14; Rom. viii. 33) for ted} ἐγείρειν τινὰ εἰς βασιλέα 
Acts xiii. 22 (§ 32), βασιλεύειν ἐπί τινι or τινά (d2 58) for τινός, 
ἀθῶος ἀπό τ. for the Genitive alone (Krebs, obs. ὁ Josepho p.73sq.). 
[Hither may be referred also without hesitation μυεῖσθαι ἐν τ. 
Phil. iv. 12 for τινί; see Wiesinger in loc.] From the Sept. ef. 
φείδεσθαι ἐπί τινι or τινος or ὑπέρ τινος (Ὁ: DIM). 


This use of prepositions with cases instead of cases alone, is, however, 
in general characteristic of (antique) simplicity, and occurs therefore in 
Greek, not only in the earlier poets, as Homer, but in prose writers also, as 

170 Lucian; see Jacob, quaest. Lucian. p.11 sq. Hence even from good writers 
ith el. many instances of the kind may be quoted, such as παύειν ἀπό, cf. Mtth. 833. 


2. No case is ever in reality put for another (enallage caswum). 
Sometimes, however, two cases can be used with equal correct- 
ness in one and the same connection when the relation to be 
expressed may be viewed in two different ways; for example 
᾿Ασσύριος τῷ γένει and τὸ γένος, προςκυνεῖν τινε to show reverence 
to one, and προςκυνεῖν twa to revere one, καλῶς ποιεῖν τινα and τινὲ 
(Thilo, Act. Thom. 38), ἔνοχός τινι and twos (Fr. Mt. p. 223)? 
ὅμοιός Twos and τινι, πληροῦσθαί twos (made full ef something) 
and τινι (filled with something). Also μιμνήσκεσθαί τι and τινος 
(like recordari rei and rem) ; in the former case (with the Acc.) 

163 I conceive of the remembering as directed (transitively) to the 

bth ed Object ; with the Gen. (meminisse rev) the remembrance is con- 
ceived of as emanating or coming from the object. It cannot be 
said, therefore, that in any instance the Dat. or Acc. is put for 
the Gen., or vice versa; but both cases, logically, are alike correct, 
and it only remains to notice which construction has become the 
more usual, or whether one of them belongs especially to the later 

194 language or to any particular writer (as εὐαγγελίζεσθαί τινα, 
προςκυνεῖν τινι). 


1 As the Byzantines sometimes say: ἀγανακτεῖν ΟΥ̓́ὀργίζεσθαι κατά τινος, or Dio 
Chr. 38, 470 ὀργίζεσθαι πρός τινα. 

2 The distinction which Schaef. Demosth. V. 323, lays down between these two con- 
structions is not confirmed by the N.T. Cf. besides, Μὴ. 850. 


§ 29. NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. 181 


Perhaps the most absurd instance of enallage casuum that could be 
alleged, would be 2 Cor. vi. 4 συνιστῶντες ἑαυτοὺς ὡς θεοῦ διάκονοι for 
διακόνους. Both expressions, indeed, can be used, but in different significa- 
tions. J commend myself as instructor (Nom.) means: in the office of an 
instructor which I have undertaken; but J commend myself as an instructor 
(Acc.) means: as one who wishes or is able to be an instructor. 


8. Every case, as such, stands in a necessary connection, ac- 
cording to its nature, with the structure of the sentence in which 
it occurs. This connection is most direct as regards the Nom. and 
Acc., the former as the case of the subject, the latter as that of 
the object ;— for secondary relations, the Gen. and Dat. There 
are also, however, casus absoluti i.e. cases which are not wrought 
into the grammatical structure of the sentence, — cases which are 
grammatically isolated, and have only a logical connection with 
the sentence. Nominatives absolute are the most frequent and 
the most distinctly marked (Bengel on Matt. xii. 36). Real Ac- 
cusatives absolute are more rare (δ 63. 1. 2d.), cf. Fr. Rom. IIT. 
11 sq., for what is called an Accusative absolute is often dependent, 
though loosely, on the construction of the sentence. As to Geni- 
tives and Datives absolute, the import of these cases proves them 
to be regular component parts of the sentence. See, in general, 
A. de Wannowski, syntaxeos anomalae graecae pars de construc- 
tione, quae dicitur, absoluta, etc. Lips. 1835, 8vo.; F. W. Hoffmann, 174% 
observata et monita de casibus absol. ap. Graecos et Lat. ita positis ‘th ed. 
ut videantur non posse locum habere. Budiss. 1836, 4to. (it treats 
only of the Gen. and Dat. absolute) ; J. Geisler, de graecor. nom- 
inativis absol. Vratisl. 1845, 8vo., and E. Wentzel, de genitivis et 
dat. absol. Vratisl. 1828, 8vo. But the whole subject of the Nom- 
inative absolute comes under the head of Structure of Sentences. 


8 29. NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. 


1. A noun considered simply and solely in itself is represented 
by the Nominative ; and is either subject or predicate in a sentence, 
according to the latter’s structure ; as, Jno. i. 1 ἐν ἀρχῇ ἣν ὁ λόγος, 
Eph. ii. 14 αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν. 

Sometimes, however, a Nominative, without being wrought into 164 
the structure of the sentence to.which it belongs, is either placed th αὶ 
at its head as a sort of title or topic (Nom. absol.), or inserted as 195 
a term of designation (Nom. tituli) as if it were an indeclinable 


182 § 29, NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. 


word: a. Acts vii. 40 ὁ Mavofs οὗτος... οὐκ οἴδαμεν τί γέγονε» 
αὐτῷ, see ὃ 38, 8. b. Ino. xviii. 10 ἣν ὄνομα τῷ δούλῳ Μάλχος, 
Rev. vi. 8; viii. 11 ; xix. 13 (Demosth. Macart. 669b.), Luke xix. 
29 πρὸς τὸ ὄρος τὸ καλούμενον ᾿Ελαιών.: Of. 1 Sam. ix. 9 τὸν 
προφήτην ἐκάλει ὁ λαὸς ἔμπροσθεν ὁ βλέπων, Malal. 18, 482 : 
10, 247 see Lob. Phryn. 5172 But Acts i. 12 ἀπὸ ὄρους τοῦ καλου- 
μένου ᾿Ε)λαιῶνος. 

Usually, however, names, where an oblique case is necessary, take that 
case, and so are construed as part of the sentence (and ὀνόματι merely in- 
terposed) ; as, Acts xxvii. 1 éxarovrdpyy ὀνόματι ᾿Ἰουλίῳ, ix. 11, 12 ἄνδρα 
*Avaviav ὀνόμασι εἰξελθόντα (xviii. 2; Matt. xxvii. 82; Luke v. 27), xviii. 
7 οἰκία τινὸς ὀνόματι Ἰούστου, also Matt. i. 21, 25 καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ 
Ἰησοῦν, Luke i. 13 (as an apposition to ὄνομα), even Mark iii. 16 ἐπέθηκεν 
ὄνομα τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρον. (Different modes of expression are combined in 
Plut. Coriol. 11.) 

172 In Rev. i. 4 the Nom. 6 ὧν κ. ὁ ἣν κ. ὃ ἐρχόμενος (A305 the Immutable) 
Τὰ ol. is designedly used as indeclinable. See § 10. p. 68. 


2. Coincident with a, above is the use of the Nom. (with the 
Article) in addressing, particularly in calling or commanding ; 
consequently, instead of the Vocative, which was intended for this 
purpose (Fischer-Weller III. 1. 819sq.; Markland, Eurip. Iph. Aul. 
446). This use of the Nom. sometimes occurs, also, in the N. T., 
as Matt. xi. 26 ναὶ, 6 πατὴρ (ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι 25), ὅτι οὕτως 
ἐγένετο, Heb.i.8; x.7 (in the Sept. cf. Ps. xlii. 2; xxii.2), especially 
in the Imperat., as Luke viii. 54 ἡ παῖς ἔγειρε, Matt. xxvii. 29 χαῖρε 
ὁ βασιλεὺς τ. Iovd. Jno. xix. ὃ; Mark v. 41; ix. 25; Eph. vi. 1; 
Col. iii. 18; Rev. vi.10. This form of expression may have origi- 
nally possessed some degree of roughness or harshness (Bhdy. 67), 
and retains it even in Greek prose. Afterwards, however, it was 
employed without special emphasis, and also in the kindest ad- 


1 Τὴ all earlier editions (including that of Lchm.) we find ἐλαιῶν. I am not prepared, 
with F’r., to pronounce this aecent positively wrong. Luke, intending his Gospel for 
foreign readers, in mentioning for the first time the Mount of Olives, well enough known. 
in Palestine, might naturally say, the so-called Mount of Olives, as in Actsi. 12. But 
the expression πρὸς τὸ ὄρος τὸ λεγόμενον ἐλαιῶν would have to be resolved into τὸ λεγό- 
μενον pos ἐλαιῶν ad montem qui dicitur olivarum; and the Article before ἐλ. would be by 
no means necessary. Perhaps even the Syriac translator read Ἔλαιών ; he renders the 


above as he does Acts i. 12: {do} 2.2 po Ako» Ἶ5..) but ὄρος τῶν ἐλ. Matt. 


xxi. 1, simply Δ." bo xxiv. 3 ete. 


2 We find even τὴν ἀνθρωποτόκος φωνήν Theodoret. IV. 1304, τὴν θεὸς mpos- 
ηγορίαν IIT. 241; IV. 454, where the Romans (a circumstance which modern writers of 
Latin generally overlook) always employ the Genitive. 


Νέδιν.. .. 


= 
᾿ς 


8 29. NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. 183 


dresses, as in Luke xii. 82 μὴ φοβοῦ, τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον, Vill. 54 
(Bar. 4, 5), even in prayers, as in Luke xviii. 11; Heb. x. 7. 


On the other hand, Jno. xx. 28, though directed to Jesus (εἶπεν 196 


aviv), is rather exclamation than address; and, in the Greek 
authors, such a Nom. has early and strong prominence (Bhdy. as 


above, Krii. 12). So also Luke xii. 20 (according to the reading 165 
ἄφρων, and 1 Cor. xv. 36, where ἄφρον has little authority in its δὲ δὶ 


favor), likewise Phil. iii. 18, 19 πολλοὶ yap περιπατοῦσιν, ods Tod- 
λάκις ἔλεγον ... τοὺς ἐχθροὺς τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῦ Xp., ὧν τὸ τέλος 
ἀπώλεια... οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες, perhaps also Mark 
xii. 88-40 βλέπετε ἀπὸ τῶν γραμματέων, τῶν θελόντων ... καὶ 
ἀσπασμοὺς... καὶ πρωτοκαθεδρίας ... οἱ κατεσθίοντες τὰς 
οἰκίας ... οὗτοι λήψονται περισσότερον κρῖμα (yet here 
the words of κατεσθ. may also be joined with οὗτοι λήψονται) 1 ---- 
Vocative and Nominative are united in Rev. xviii. 20. 

8. In the N. T., however, the Vocative, with or more frequently 
without ὦ, is far more common than the Nom. in addresses. We 
find ὦ only in addresses, Acts i. 1; xxvii. 21; xviii. 14; 1 Tim. 
vi. 11, mostly of adjuration and censure (Lob. Soph. Aj. 451 sq., 
see Fritzsche, Aristoph. I. 4), Rom. ii. 1,3; ix. 20; 1 Tim. vi. 20; 
Jas. ii. 20; Gal. iii. 1, or in exclamations, as Luke xxiv. 25; Acts 
xili. 10. On the other hand, in mere accosting or calling the 
Vocative without ὦ is employed, as Luke xiii. 12; xxii.57; xxiii. 
28; Matt. ix. 22; Juno. iv. 21; xix. 26; Acts xiii. 15; xxvii. 25. 
Even at the beginning of a speech, where ὦ is regularly prefixed 
by the Greeks, we find in the N. T. for the most part the Vocative 
alone: Actsi. 16; 11. 14; iii. 12; xiii. 16; xv. 13 (see, however, 
Franke, Demosth. p. 193).? 


. 


An adjective belonging to a Vocative is put in the Voe. also; as, Jas. 173 
ii. 20 ὦ ἄνθρωπε xevé, Matt. xviii. 32; Jno. xvii. 11 (but cf. Jacobs, Achill. ith ed 


Tat. p. 466) ; on apposition with the Vocative, however, see § 59, 8. 

Note. Some have erroneously attributed to the language of the N. T. 
a Hebraistic circumlocution for the Nominative, 

a. by means of the Acc. with eis, in the phrases εἶναι or γίνεσθαι εἴς τι; 
(Leusden, diall. p. 132). By far the greater number of the passages ad- 
duced are quotations from the Old Test. or expressions taken from it that 
have become standing phrases (Matt. xix. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. v. 31; 


1 Hm. praef. ad Eur. Androm. p. 15 sq. says, mihi quidem ubique nominativus, quem 
pro vocativo positum volunt, non vocantis sed declarantis esse videtur: o tu, qui es 
talis. This applies to some of the above passages but not to all, and ought probably 
to be asserted primarily only of the poets. 

? On ὦ beforé the Vocative, see, in general, Doberenz, Progr. Hildburgh. 1844, 4to. 


184 § 80. GENITIVE. 


Heb. viii. 10, etce.). Besides, it was overlooked that the expressfon 
197 γίνεσθαι εἴς τι fiert 1.6. abire (mutari) in alig. (Acts v. 86; Ino. xvi. 20; 
Rev. viii. 11) may be used in Greek (Georgi, Vind. 337 ; Schwarz, Com- 
ment. 285), and is used, by the later authors at least, even in reference to 
persons (Geo. Pachymer. 1.345 εἰς συμμάχους αὐτοῖς γίνονται) ; further, it was 
not considered that in the Hebrew expression equivalent to εἶναι εἴς τι, the 
> does not properly express the Nom. but corresponds to our (turn or serve) 
to or for something, (Heb. viii. 10 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 22, ef. Wisd. ii. 14; Acta 
apocr. 169). In1 Cor. iv. 3 ἐμοὶ εἰς ἐλάχιστόν ἐστιν signifies, to me (for me) 
tt belongs to what is of least importance, most insignificant (I rank it as 
such). Eis οὐδὲν λογισθῆναι Acts xix. 27 is similar: to be accounted as 
166 nothing (Wisd. ix. 6)... In Luke ii. 84 κεῖται εἰς πτῶσιν the preposition 
#h ed. indicates in like manner the destination, and does not conflict with Greek 
analogy, see Phil. i. 17 (16); 1 Thess. iii. 8, cf. Aesop. 24, 2 εἰς μείζονά 
σοι ὠφέλειαν ἔσομαι, and the Latin auxilio esse (Zumpt, Gr. 5. 549). 
See, further, ὃ 32. 4. Ὁ. p. 228. 
Ὁ. by means of ἐν as an imitation of the Hebrew Beth essentiae (Gesen. 
Lgb. 838; Knobel on Isa. xxviii. 16), in the passages Mark v. 25 γυνή τις 
οὖσα ἐν ῥύσει αἵματος, Rey. i. 10 ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ 
(Glass. I. 81), Eph. v. 9 ὃ καρπὸς τοῦ φωτὸς ἐν πάσῃ ἀγαθωσύνῃ (Hartmann, 
linguist. Einl 884), and Jno. ix. 80 ἐν τούτῳ θαυμαστόν ἐστι (Schleusner, 
under ἐν). But, in the first passage, εἶναι ἐν ῥ. is to be in the state of, ete. 
In the second, γίνεσθαι ἐν πνεύματι ἐν is to be present anywhere in spirit. 
In the third, εἶναι ἐν is equivalent to contineri, positum esse in (see the 
expositors). The last passage may be aptly rendered: herein is a marvel- 
lous thing. Gesenius too has attributed this Hebraistic construction to 
Greek and Latin writers unwarrantably ; for εἶναι ἐν σοφοῖς, in magnis 
viris (habendum) esse, assuredly contains nothing anomalous, but is quite 
a natural combination, and is to be rendered, belong to the number of. Ἔν 
and in would be equivalent to a Beth essentiae only in case the expression 
were: ἐν σοφῷ, in sapienti viro, for σοφός, sapiens. But no reasonable 
man can talk so, and in a word the Hebraistic Beth essentiae construction 
174 is a pure figment of empirical grammarians ;” see my edition of Simonis 
th ed. p. 109, and Fr. Mr. p. 291 sq. The other examples adduced by Haab 
(S. 337 f.) are so manifestly inadmissible that we will not tarry a moment 
upon them. 


198 ¢ 30. GENITIVE. 


1. The Genitive is acknowledged to be the whence-case — (the 
case denoting source, departure, or descent ; cf. Hartung, Casus 


1 Quite different the expression χρήματα els ἀργύριον λογίζεσθαι Xen. C. 8, 1, 33. 
2 With the entirely misunderstood 8&7 293, Exod. xxxii. 22, compare Ael. 10, 1] 


ἀποθανεῖν ἐν καλῷ ἐστιν. Should this too be taken for καλόν ἐστιν 3 


πε: 


880. GENITIVE. 185 


S. 12), and is most clearly recognized as such in connection with 
words expressive of action, and accordingly, with verbs. Its most 
common and most familiar appearance in prose, however, is in 
connecting two substautives ; here, through its gradually extended 
signification, it denotes every sort of dependence or belonging ;1 
e.g. ὁ κύριος τοῦ κόσμου, ᾿Ιούδας ᾿Ιακώβου. 

We shall consider first this use of the Genitive — Cin connection 
with which even a Pronoun or the Article ef. 8 18, 8 may hold the 
place of the governing word). And since even this comprehends, 167 
in plain prose alone, a great diversity of significations (Schaef. ‘tho 
KEurip. Or. 48) exclusive of the common instances, — to which 
belong particularly the Gen. of quality, Rom. xv. 5, 18 etc., and 
the partitive Genitive, Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 15, — we notice, 

a. The Genitive of the Object after substantives which denote 
an internal or an external operation —a feeling, judgment, action 
(Krii. 80 f.); as, Matt. xiii. 18 παραβολὴ τοῦ σπείροντος parable 
of i.e. concerning the sower, 1 Cor. i. 6 μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ tes- 
timony concerning Christ (ii. 1 ef. xv. 15), viii. T ἡ συνείδησις τοῦ 
εἰδώλου consciousness about the idol, i.18 ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ, 
Matt. xxiv. 6 ἀκοαὶ πολέμων rumors of wars (concerning wars), cf. - 
Mtth. 814; Acts iv. 9 εὐεργεσία ἀνθρώπου towards (conferred on) 

a man (Thuc. 1, 129; 7,57; Plat. lege. 8, 850b.), Jno. vii. 13 ; 
xx. 19 φόβος ᾿Ιουδαίων fear in reference to the Jews (Eurip. Andr. 
1059), xvii. 2 ἐξουσία πάσης σαρκός power over (Matt. x.1; 1 Cor. 
ix. 12), 2 Pet. ii. 13, 15 μισθὸς ἀδικίας wages for unrighteousness, 
‘Rom. x. 2 ξῆλος θεοῦ zeal for God (Jno. ii. 17; 1 Mace. ii. 58 ; 
otherwise 2 Cor. xi. 2), Heb. ix. 15 ἀπολύτρωσις τῶν παραβάσεων 
redemption from (Plato, rep, 1. 829 ¢.). Compare likewise Matt. 
xiv. 1 (Joseph. antt. 8, 6, 5) Luke vi. 12 (Eurip. Troad. 895) Eph. 
ii. 20; Rom. xv. 8; 2 Pet. i. 9; Jas. ii. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 15; Heb. x. 
24. For examples from Greek authors, see Markland, Eur. suppl. 199 
838; d’Orville, Char. p. 498 ; Schaef. Soph. II. 201; Stallb. Plat. 
rep. II. 201, and Apol. p. 29; Poppo, III. I. 521. 

The following phrases are of frequent recurrence in the N. T.: 175 
ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ or Χριστοῦ love to God, to Christ, Jno. v.42; 1 Jno. Med 
ii. 5,15; iii, 17; 2 Thess. iii. 5 (but not Rom.v.5; viii.85; 2 Cor. 
v.14; Eph. iii. 19), φόβος θεοῦ or κυρίου Acts ix. 31; Rom. iii. 18 ; 


"If the Genitive is viewed not so much as respects its origin as abstractly, its nature 
may be defined as follows (7m. Opusc. I. 175 and Vig. p. 877) : Genitivi proprium est 
id indicare, cujus quid aliquo quocumque modo accidens est. Cf. de emendanda rat. 
p- 139. Similarly Mdv. 49. See, moreover, Schneider on Caesar, Bell. Gall. 1, 21, 2. 

24 


186 § 30. GENITIVE. 


2 Cor. v.11; vii. 1; Eph. v. 21, πίστις τοῦ θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ or ᾿Ιησοῦ 
Mark xi. 22; Rom. iii. 22; Gal. ii. 16; iii. 22; Eph. iii. 12; Phil. 
iii. 9; Jas. ii. 1; Rev. xiv. 12 {πίστις ἀληθείας 2 Thess. ii. 18), 
taxon τοῦ Χριστοῦ or τ. πίστεως etc. 2 Cor. x.5; Rom. i. 53; xvi. 
26; 1 Pet. i. 22 (2 Cor. ix. 13). But δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, in the doc- 
trinal phraseology of Paul (Rom. i. 17; iii. 21 f; x. 8 ete.) is, — 
agreeably to his teaching concerning θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν (cf. iii. 80 ; 
iv. 5),—righteousness which God bestows (on man), and, the 
meaning once fixed, δικαιοσ. θεοῦ might be predicated even of 
believers themselves, 2 Cor. v.21. Others, with Luther, understand 
the expression thus: the righteousness that avails before God 
(quae deo satisfacit, Fr. Rom. I. 47), dm. παρὰ τῷ Oed. The pos- 
sibility of this explanation lies in δίκαιος παρὰ τῷ θεῷ Rom. ii. 13 
antithetic to δικαιοῦσθαι, and still more immediately in δικαιοῦσθαι 
παρὰ τῷ θεῷ Gal. iii. 11, or ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ Rom. iii. 20. Both 
expressions would be appropriate according to the nature of the 
δικαιοῦσθαι in question. But the interpretation δικαιοῖ ὁ θεὸς τὸν 
ἄνθρωπον is the more rigorous, and in Rom. x. 3 a better antithesis 
is gained if duc. Θεοῦ denotes riyhteousness which God imparts. 
Compare also Phil. iii. 9 ἡ ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη. 


168 It is obvious from the preceding considerations that the decision between ἡ 
bth el. the Subjective and the Objective Genitive rests in many passages not with 
the grammarian but with the exegete, and the latter in making it must 
give careful attention to parallel passages also. 

In Phil. iv. 7 εἰρήνη θεοῦ can only mean the peace (of soul) that God 
gives, according to the custom of the apostles to wish their readers εἰρήνην 
ἀπὸ θεοῦ; and this parallelism is more decisive here than Rom. v. 1 εἰρήνην 
ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν θεόν (according to which peace with God must be the 
translation). Likewise in Col. iii. 15 εἰρήνη Χριστοῦ I take the Genitive 
to be Subjective, cf. Jno. xiv.27. That δικαιοσύνη πίστεως (a single notion : 
Saith-righteousness), Rom. iv. 13, signifies righteousness which faith brings 
with it, is manifest from the more frequent expression ἢ bux. ἣ ἐκ πίστεως 
Rom. ix. 80; x. δ. In Eph. iv. 18 ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ θεοῦ is 
God’s-life ; the life of Christian believers is so called as being a life com- 
municated, inwardly excited, by God. 
200 Whether the Genitive in the phrase εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ is to be 

taken as Subjective (the Gospel made known by Christ), or Objective 
(the Gospel concerning Christ), may be doubted. For my part I prefer 
the latter, because in some passages we find the entire expression εὐαγγέλιον 
τοῦ θεοῦ περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ (e.g. Rom. i. 3), of which the other is probably 
but an abridgment; cf. also εὐαγγέλιον τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ Acts xx. 24, 
and εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ Matt. iv. 23; ix. 35. Mey. (on 


§ 30. GENITIVE. 187 


Marki.1) declares himself now for one view, now for the other. Likewise 

in Col. ii. 18 expositors are not agreed whether in θρησκεία ἀγγέλων the 176 
Gen. is to be taken as Subjective or as Objective; the latter is preferable : ith ed 
worship paid to angels, angel-worship ; cf. Euseb. H. E. 6, 41 θρησκεία τῶν 
δαιμόνων (var.), Philo II. 259 Op. θεῶν (9 τοῦ θεοῦ λατρεία Plat. Apol. 23 c.). 

In 1 Tim. iv. 1 δαιμονίων is undoubtedly a Subjective Genitive. But in 
βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς, Heb. vi. 2, if the latter be considered as the principal 
noun (see below, 3. note 4), βαπτισμ. can only denote the object of the 
διδαχή. In Rom. viii. 23 ἀπολύτρωσις τοῦ σώματος, according to Paul’s — 
teaching, appears rather to signify liberation of the body (from that δουλεία 
τῆς φθορᾶς 21) than liberation from the body. Likewise in Heb.i.3 ; 2 Pet.’ 
i. 9 καθαρισμὸς τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν might mean purification of sins (removal of 
sins, cf. Deut. xix. 13), just as one may say καθαρίζονται ai ἁμαρτίαι (cf. 
καθαίρειν αἷμα to remove by purification, Iliad 16, 667) ; but it is simpler 
to take τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν as an Objective Genitive. In Rom. ii. 7 ὑπομονὴ 
ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ, 1 Thess. i. 3 ὑπομονὴ τῆς ἐλπίδος, is simply: steadfastness of 
well-doing, steadfastness of hope. Jas. ii. 4 is probably an indignant ques- 
tion: would ye not in this become judges of evil thoughts (your own) ? 


2. But the Genitive is likewise employed, b. to denote relations 
of dependence still more remote (cf. Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 108 
sq.; Stallb. Plat. Tim. p. 241 sq.; Bhdy. 160 ff.). In this way, by 
a kind of condensed expression, compound designations are formed 
which must be resolved variously, according to the relation of the 
ideas composing them. We distinguish, 

a. The Genitive which expresses relations entirely external (of 169 
place or of time); as, Matt. x. 5 ὁδὸς ἐθνῶν the way to the gentiles ae 
(Heb. ix. 8 cf. Gen. iii. 24. ἡ ὁδὸς τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς, Jer. ii. 184 
Judith v. 14) ', Jno. x. 7 θύρα τῶν προβάτων door to the sheep (Mey.), 
Matt. i. 11, 12 μετοικεσία Βαβυλῶνος the carrying away to Babylon 
(Orph. 200 ἐπὶ πλόον ᾿ΔΑξείνοιο ad expeditionem in Axinum, 144 
νόστος οἴκόοιο domum reditus, Eurip. Iph. T. 1066 ef. Schaef. Melet. 

p- 90; Seidler, Eurip. Electr. 161; Spohn, Isoer. Paneg. p. 2; Bttm. 
Soph. Philoct. p. 67) Jno. vii. 35 ἡ διασπορὰ τῶν ᾿Εχλήνων the 
dispersion (the dispersed) among the Greeks, Mark viii. 27 κῶμαι 
Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου towns about Caesarea Ph., situated on its 
territory (Isa. xvii. 2) Col. i. 20 αἷμα τοῦ σταυροῦ blood of the 201 


1 But Matt. iv. 15 ὁδὸς θαλάσσης undoubtedly way by the sea (of Tiberias). 

2 Vice versa Plat. Apol. 40 c. μετοίκησις τῆς ψυχῆς τοῦ τόπου τοῦ ἐνθένδε (away 
from this place). 

5 This finally comes back to the common topographical (Krii. 27) Genitive, as Jno. 
ii. 1 Κανᾶ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, Acts xxii. 3 Tapods τῆς Κιλικίας, xiii. 13 f. ; xxvii. 5; Luke 
iv. 26 ; cf. Xen. H. 1,2,12; D.S. 16,92; 17,63; Diog. L. 8,3; Arrian. Al. 2, 4,1, see 
Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 151; Ramshorn, lat. Gr. I. 167 — and this is simply the Genitive 


* of belonging. 


188 § 80. GENITIVE. 


cross i.e. blood shed on the cross, 1 Pet. i. 2 ῥαντισμὸς αἵματος 

sprinkling (purifying) with blood, 2 Cor. xi. 26 κίνδυνοι ποταμῶν 
177 dangers on rivers (followed immediately by κίνδ. ἐν πόλει, ἐν θα- 
ith el. λάσσῃ etc.), cf. Heliod. 2, 4, 65 κίνδυνοι θαλασσῶν. 

Designations of time: Rom. ii. ὃ (Zeph. 11. 2) ἡμέρα ὀργῆς day 
of wrath, that is, day on which the punitive wrath of God will be 
manifested, Jude 6 κρίσις μεγάλης ἡμέρας judgment (at) on the 
great day, Luke ii. 44 ὁδὸς ἡμέρας a day’s journey (distance trav- 
elled in a day, cf. Her. 4,101; Ptol. 1, 11, 4), Heb. vi. 1 ὁ τῆς 
ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγος primary Christian instruction. So also 
τεκμήρια ἡμερῶν τεσσαράκοντα Acts i. ὃ according to D.} 

An external (local) relation also is expressed in ἀλάβαστρον 
μύρου Mark xiv. ὃ and κεράμιον ὕδατος verse 18, cf. 1 Sam. x. 3 
ἀγγεῖα ἄρτων, ἀσκὸς οἴνου, Soph. El. 758 χαλκὸς σποδοῦ (see Schaef. 
Longi Pastor. p. 386), Dion. H. IV. 2028 ἀσφάλτου καὶ πίσσης 
ἀγγεῖα, Theoph. Ch. 17; Diog. L. 6,9; 7, 8; Lucian. asin. 87; 
fugit. 31; Diod. S. Vatic. 32,1. Under this head also comes Jno. 
xxi. 8 τὸ δίκτυον τῶν ἰχθύων (11 μεστόν ixdwv), even ἀγέλη χοίρων 
Matt. viii. 30 and ἑκατὸν βάτοι ἐλαίου Luke xvi. 6. See on this 
Genitive of contents, Krii. 32. 


᾿Ανάστασις νεκρῶν is nowhere in the N.T. equivalent to ἀνάστασις ἐκ 
νεκρῶν, but denotes even in Rom. i. 4 the resurrection of the dead, absolutely 
and generically, although consummated only in a single individual. The 
doctrinal remarks of Philippi on this expression are mere trifling. 


8. The more remote internal relations are especially expressed 

by the Genitive in the writings of John and, Paul; as, Jno. v. 29 
170 ἀνάστασις ζωῆς, κρίσεως, resurrection to life, resurrection to judg- 
ih ed. ment (Genitive of destination, Theodor. 1V. 1140 ἱερωσύνης χειρο- 
tovia to the priesthood, ef. Rom, viii. 86 Sept. πρόβατα σφαγῆς), 
Rom. v. 18 δικαίωσις ζωῆς justification to life, Mark i. 4 βάπτισμα 
μετανοίας baptism engaging to repentance, Rom. vii. 2 νόμος τοῦ 
ἀνδρός law of the husband, i.e. which lays down the relation to the 
husband (cf. Dem. Mid. 390 a. ὁ τῆς βλάβης νόμος the law of damage, 
frequently in the Sept. as in Lev. xiv. 2 ὁ νόμος τοῦ λεπροῦ, vii. 1; 
202 xv. 32; Num. vi. 13, 21, see Fr. Rom. II. 9), vi. 6 σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας 
body of sin, i.e body which belongs to sin, in which sin has tenancy 
and lordship (in which sin is carried. into effect), very like σῶμα 

τῆς σαρκός Col. i. 22 body in which carnality permanently dwells ; 


1 Others, with less probability, take ἡμερῶν τεσσαρ. by itself: during forty days (Jacobs, 
Achill. Tat. p. 640 sq.) ; yet see below, No. 11, p. 207. 


§ 30. GENITIVE. 189 


Rom. vii. 24 σῶμα τοῦ θανάτου τούτου body of this death, i.e. which 
(in the way described vs. 7 sqq.) leads to death, vss. 5, 10, and 13. 
See, further, Tit. iii. 5. 


In Luke xi. 29 τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ is simply the sign once exhibited in Jonah 
(now to be repeated in the person of Christ). In the same way must 
Jude 11 be explained; but in Jno. xix. 14 παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα does not 
mean the day of preparation for the Passover, but simply and naturally 178 
the resting-day of the Passover (the day of rest belonging to the Paschal ith οἱ, 
festival). In Heb. iii. 13 ἀπάτη τῆς ἁμαρτίας is the Subjective Genitive, 
and ἁμαρτία is to be taken as a personification (Rom. vii. 11 etce.). Yet 
in 2 Thess. ii. 10 ἀπάτη τῆς ἀδικίας is, deceit leading to unrighteousness. On 
Eph. iv. 18 see Mey., and on Jas. 1. 17 de Wette. Further, in Eph. iii. 1; 

2 Tim. i. 8, Philem. 1, 9 δέσμιος Χριστοῦ a prisoner of Christ means one 
whom Christ (the cause of Christ) has made and keeps a prisoner, cf. 
Wisd. xvii. 2; in Jas. ii. 5 of πτωχοὶ τοῦ κόσμου (if the reading is correct) 

the poor of the world signifies, they who in their position in the world are 
poor, poor therefore in worldly goods (though - κόσμος itself does not on 
this account mean worldly goods). In Jno. vi. 45 διδακτοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ in- 
structed of God, that is by God, as in Matt. xxv. 34 of εὐλογημένοι τοῦ πατρός 
méans Blessed by the Father. In Eph. vi. 4,11, 18 κυρίου and θεοῦ are 
genitivi auctoris, as also τῶν γραφῶν Rom. xv. 4. Likewise Phil. i. 8 ἐν 
σπλάγχνοις Χριστοῦ “I. is to be taken as the Subjective Genitive, though 

the more precise interpretation may be various. Cf. also Eph. vi. 4 and 17] 
Mey. Lastly, the correct interpretation of 1 Pet. iii. 21 does not depend 6th ed 
so much on the Genitive συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς as on the meaning of ἐπερώτημα ; 
sponsio would accord perfectly with the context, but this rendering has 

not been lexically established either by de Wette or Huther. On Heb. 

ix. 11 see Bleek. In 1 Cor. i. 27 τοῦ κόσμου is the Subjective Genitive ; 

see Meyer. In 1 Cor.x. 16 τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας means simply the cup 

of blessing, that is, over which the blessing is uttered ; and in 21 zor. κυρίου 208 
means cup of the Lord, where the closer relation of the Genitive is to be 
gathered from 16, just as in Col. ii. 11 that of Χριστοῦ is to be deduced 
from 14. Mey. gives a correct decision on Col. i. 14. In Acts xxii. 3 
νόμου depends on x. ἀκρίβειαν. 


1 As in Philem. 13 δεσμοὶ τοῦ edayy. means bonds which the Gospel has brought. 
Without reference to the parallel passages the above might be rendered: a prisoner 
belonging to Christ. Others translate it, a prisoner for Christ’s sake. In the N. 'T. the 
Genitive is frequently so explained (Mtth. 851; Krii.31), yetalways incorrectly. Heb. 
xiii. 13 τὸν ὀνειδισμὸν Χριστοῦ φέροντες is: bearing the reproach which Christ bore (and 
still bears). So also 2 Cor. i. 5 περισσεύει τὰ παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἡμᾶς the sufferings 
which Christ had to endure, i.e. from the enemies of divine truth, come (anew) abundantly 
upon us ; for, the sufferings which believers endure (for the sake of divine tryth) are 
essentially one with the sufferings of Christ, — only a continuation of them (cf. Phil. 
iii. 10). “So also probably Col. i. 24 af θλίψεις τοῦ Χριστοῦ and 2 Cor. iv. 10. On the 
first passage, which has been very variously explained, see Liicke, Progr. in loc. Col. 
i. 24 (Gdtting. 1833, 4to.) p. 12sq., and Huther and Mey. in loc. 


190 § 80, GENITIVE. 


Some refer the Genitive οἴκου in Heb. iii. 8 to τιμήν, greater honor of 
the house (i.e. in, from, the house), etc. This construction, though not 
of itself inadmissible, is, for this writer, stiff, and clearly opposed to his 
design ; see Bleek. 

On the Genitive of apposition in particular, as πόλεις Σοδόμων καὶ Dopdppas 
2 Pet. ii. 6 (urbs Romae), σημεῖον περιτομῆς Rom. iv. 11, see $59, 8, p. 531. 


3. It was long usual to regard the Genitive of Relationship as a 
Genitive with an ellipsis; as, Μαρία ᾿Ιακώβου, ᾿Ιούδας ᾿Ιακώβου, 
179 Δαυὶδ 6 τοῦ ’Ieccai. But as the Genitive is the case of dependence, 
ith el. ond as every relationship is a sort of dependence, there is no essen- 
tial notion wanting in such expressions (Hm. Ellips. p. 120); only 
the thought which the Gen. éxpresses in a very general way (Plato, 
rep. 8, 408 b.) is left to be defined by the reader according to the 
facts in the case. Most frequently this Gen.implies son or daughter; 
as, Matt.iv. 21; Jno. vi. 71; xxi. 2,15; Acts xiii. 22. But μήτηρ 
is to be understood in Luke xxiv. 10; Mark xv. 47; xvi. 1, ef. 
Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40 (Aelian. 16, 30 ᾿Ολυμπιὰς ἡ ᾿Αλεξάν- 
Spou sc. μήτηρ), πατήρ in Acts vii. 16 ᾿Εμμὼρ τοῦ Συχέμ (ef. Gen. 
xxxili. 19; similar in Steph. Byzant. under Aaidara: ἡ πόλις ἀπὸ 
Δαιδάλου τοῦ Indpov), γυνή in Matt. i. 6 ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου and Jno. 
xix. 25 (see my RWB. II. 57f.) cf. Aristoph. eccl. 46; Plin. epp. 
2, 20 Verania Pisonis ; ἀδελῴός perhaps, in Luke vi. 16; Actsi. 13 
᾿Ιούδας ᾿Ιακώβου, if the same apostle is mentioned in Jude 1 (ef. 
Alciphr. 2, 2 Τιμοκράτης ὁ Μητροδώρου sc. ἀδελφός). Such des- 
ignation in the circle of the Apostles might have arisen from the 
circumstance that James, the brother of Judas, was better known 
or more prominent than the father of Judas. See, in general, Bos, 
ellips. ed. Schaef. under the words; Boisson. Philostr. her. p. 207. 


In 1 Cor. i. 11 οἱ Χλόης are, accordingly, Chloe’s people, as in Rom. xvi. 10, 
11 οἱ ᾿Αριστοβούλου, οἱ Napxiooov. A more definite explanation must be 
supplied by the facts of the case. Perhaps we should here understand, with 
most expositors, the members of the household of these persons. Others 
understand the slaves. To the original readers the expression was clear. 
Further, see Valcken. in loc. 
204 Note 1. It is not unusual, especially in Paul’s style, to find three Gen- 
itives connected together, and grammatically governed one by another. 
172 Frequently, however, one of them is employed instead of an adjective: 
6th el. 2 Cor. iv. 4 τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Eph.i. 6 εἰς 
ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, iv. 18 εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας τοῦ πληρώματος τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ (where the last two Genitives go together), 1. 19; Rom. ii. 4 ; Col. 
j. 20; ii, 12,18; 1 Thess. 1. 8; 2 Thess.i.9; Rev. xviii.3; xxi.6; Heb. 
v. 12; 2 Pet. iii, 2, cf. Kriiger, Xen. A. 2, 5,88; Bornem. Xenoph. Apol. 


§ 30. GENITIVE. 191 


p. 44; Boisson. Babr. p- 116. In Rev. xiv. 10 (xix. 15) οἶνος τοῦ θυμοῦ 
must be taken together : wine of wrath, burning wine, according to an O.T. 
figure. Four Genitives occur in Rev. xiv. 8 ἐκ τοῦ οἴνου τοῦ θυμοῦ τῆς 
πορνείας αὐτῆς, xvi. 19; xix. 15 (Judith ix.8; x.3; xiii. 18; Wisd. xiii. ὅ, 
etc.). On the other hand, in 2 Cor. iii. 6 διακόνους καινῆς διαθήκης οὐ γράμ- 
ματος ἀλλὰ πνεύματος the last two Genitives must, on account of verse 7, 
be considered as both dependent on the principal noun. In Rom. xi. 33 
all the three Genitives, in the same way, refer to βάθος. 

Note 2. Sometimes, particularly in Paul’s epistles, the Genitive (when 
placed after) is separated from its governing noun by another word; as, 180 
Phil. ii. 10 ἵνα πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων ith ed 
(Genitives subjoined in explanation of πᾶν γόνυ), Rom. ix. 21 ἢ οὐκ ἔχει 
ἐξουσίαν ὃ κεραμεὺς τοῦ πηλοῦ; 1 Tim. iii. 6 ἵνα μὴ εἰς κρίμα ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ 
διαβόλου (probably for emphasis), 1 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Cor. viii. 7; Heb. 
viii. 5; Jno. xii. 11; 1 Pet. iii. 21. Otherwise stil] in Rev. vii. 17. On 
the other hand, in Eph. ii. 3 ἦμεν τέκνα φύσει, ὀργῆς. a different position of 
the words was hardly possible, if an unsuitable stress (ἦμεν φύσει τέκ. dpy.) 
was not to fallon dice. See, in general, Jacob, Lucian. Tox. p.46; Ellendt, 
Arrian. Al. 1. 241; Fr. Rom. II. 331. 

Note 3. Rarely two Genitives of different relations (particularly the 
one of a person, the other of a thing), mostly also separated from each 
other by position, are joined to a single noun (Krii. 33), e.g. Acts v. 32 
ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν αὐτοῦ (Χριστοῦ) μάρτυρες τῶν ῥημάτων τούτων, 2 Cor. v. 1 ἡ 
ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους, Phil. ii. 80 τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα τῆς λειτουργίας, 

2 Pet. iii. 2 τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑμῶν ἐντολῆς τοῦ κυρίου, [ Matt. xxvi. 28 τὸ 
αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης,] Heb. xiii. 7, ef. Her. 6, 2 τὴν Ἰώνων τὴν ἡγεμονίην 
τοῦ πρὸς Δαρεῖον πολέμου, Thue. 8,12 τὴν ἐκείνων μέλλησιν τῶν εἰς ἡμᾶς δεινῶν, 
6, 18 4 Νικίου τῶν λόγων ἀπραγμοσύνη, Plat. legg. 3, 690 Ὁ. τὴν τοῦ νόμου 
ἑκόντων ἀρχήν, rep. 1, 329 b. τὰς τῶν οἰκείων προπηλακίσεις τοῦ γήρως, Diog. 
L. 3, 37 and very strained Plat. Apol. 40 c. μετοίκησις τῆς ψυχῆς τοῦ τόπου 
τοῦ ἐνθένδε, see Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 329; ad legg. p. 84sq.; Lob. Soph. Aj. 
p- 219; Bttm. Demosth. Mid. p. 17, and Soph. Philoctet. v. 751; Fritzsche, 
quaest. Lucian. p. 111 sq.; Bhdy. 162; Mtth. 864 (Kritz, Sallust. II. 170). 

To this head we may also refer 1 Pet. iii. 21 σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου the 
flesh’s putting away of filth (σὰρξ ἀποτίθεται ῥύπον), unless there be here 
a transposition. 

In a different way two Genitives are connected together in Jno. vi. 1 
ἡ θάλασσα τῆς Ταλιλαίας τῆς Τιβεριάδος the Sea of Galilee, of Tiberias. 205 
Under the last name alone it occurs the second time in Jno. xxi. 1. Per- 
haps for the sake of foreign readers John annexed the more definite to 
the more general designation (cf. Pausan. 5, 7,3) that they might determine 
the locality more certainly. Beza in loc. takes a different view. Kiihndl’s 
suspicion, that the words τῆς Tif. are a gloss, is hasty. The explanation [73 
of Paulus, however, — setting sail from Tiberias —if not at variance with 6th ed 


192 § 30. GENITIVE. 


classic prose, is opposed to the style of the N. T. (cf. Bornem. Acta p. 149), 
which, in such circumstances, prefers to the simple case the more vivid 
mode of wie oop by means of the preposition: Tif. cannot be made to 
depend on the ἀπό in ἀπῆλθεν. 

Note 4. The Genitive, when placed before the governing noun, either a. 
belongs to two nouns at the same time, as in Acts iii. 7 αὐτοῦ ai βάσεις καὶ 
τὰ σφυρά, Jno. xi. 48, or Ὁ. is emphatic (Stallb. Plat. Protag. p. 118; 
Mdv. 13), as e.g. in 1 Cor. iii. 9 θεοῦ yap ἐσμεν συνεργοί, θεοῦ γεώργιον, 
᾿θεοῦ οἰκοδομή ἐστε, Acts xiii. 28 τούτου (Δαυὶδ) ὁ θεὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ σπέρματος ... 

181 ἤγαγε σωτῆρα Ἰησοῦν, Jas. i. 26 εἴ τις... τούτου μάταιος ἡ θρησκεία, iii. 8 ; 

th ed. Heb. x. 36; Eph. ii. 8. The emphasis is not unfrequently founded in an 
expressed antithesis: Phil. ii. 25 τὸν συστρατιώτην pov, ὑμῶν δὲ ἀπόστολον 
καὶ λειτουργὸν τῆς χρείας pov, Matt.i.18; Heb. vii. 12, 1 Pet. iii. 21; 
Eph. ii. 10; vi. 9; Gal. iii. 15; iv. 28; 1 Cor vi. 15; Rom. iii. 29; xiii. 4. 
The Genitive, however, for the most part contains the principal notion: 
Rom. xi. 13 ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος apostle of the Gentiles, 1 Tim. vi. 17 ἐπὶ πλούτου 
ἀδηλότητι upon riches which are perishable, Tit. i. 7; Heb. vi. 16; 2 Pet. 
ii. 14. That the placing of the Genitive before the governing noun belongs 
to the peculiarities of diction of a particular author (Gersdorf 296 ff.), 
though not in itself impossible (since emphatic combinations are weakened 
by individual writers), at least cannot be shown to be probable. Cf. more- 
over, Poppo, Thue. III. J. 243. Heb. vi. 2 is a difficult passage ; βαπτισμῶν 
διδαχῆς (depending on θεμέλιον) certainly belong togethér, and διδαχῆς 
cannot be torn away so strangely and regarded as the governing noun to 
all four Genitives, as Ebrard still maintains. But the question is, whether 
we should here admit a transposition for διδαχῆς βαπτισμῶν, as most later 
expositors do. Such a transposition, however, would be at variance with 
the whole structure of the verse; and if βαπτισμοὶ διδαχῆς is translated 
doctrinal baptisms, baptisms in connection with instruction, to distinguish 
them from the legal baptisms (lustrations) of Judaism, this appellation is 
confirmed as distinctively Christian by Matt. xxviii. 19 βαπτίσαντες αὐτούς 
... διδάσκοντες αὐτούς. Ebrard’s objection, that Christian baptism is dis- 
tinguished from mere lustrations, not by instruction, but by the forgiveness 
of sins and regeneration, amounts to nothing, for Matt. xxviii. says nothing 
about the forgiveness of sins. As regards the use of the word βαπτισμός, 
and in the Plural too, what Tholuck has already remarked may be used 
also in support of the above explanation. 

206 Note 5. Kiihnél and others consider περί with the Acc. in Mark iv. 19 
ai περὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἐπιθυμίαι as a circumlocution for the Genitive. But, 
though Mark might have written af τῶν λοιπῶν ἐπιθ., yet the former 
expression is not only more definite, but περί obviously retains its force : 
cupiditates, quae circa reliqua (rel. res) versantur (Heliod. 1, 23, 45 
ἐπιθυμία περὶ τὴν Χαρίκλειαν, Aristot. rhet. 2, 12 af περὶ τὸ σῶμα ἐπιθυμίαι), 
just as (with the Gen.) ἴῃ Jno. xv. 22. It is another thing when, in 








§ 30, GENITIVE. 193 


Greek authors, περί with the Acc. is used as a circumlocution for the 174 
Genitive of an object to which a certain quality is ascribed, e.g. Diod. Ὁ, 6th οἱ 


11, 89 ἡ περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν ἀρχαιότης, and again τὸ περὶ τοὺς κρατῆρας ἰδίωμα (cf. 
Schaef. Julian. p. VI. and Dion. comp. p. 23). With more reason might 
it be said that in 1 Cor: vii. 87 ἐξουσία περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου θελήματος this prepo- 
sition is used with the Gen. as a circumlocution for the Genitive, because 
the Genitive alone might also have been employed ; but power over (with 
respect to) his own will, is at all events the more definite and full expression. 
Expositors find a similar circumlocution for the Gen. by means of ἀπό and 
ἐκ in Acts xxiii. 21 τὴν ἀπὸ σοῦ ἐπαγγελίαν, 2 Cor. viii. 7 τῇ ἐξ ὑμῶν ἀγάπῃ. 


This, however, is literally amor qui @ vobis proficiscitur, promissio a te 182 
profecta, and is more precise than τῇ ὑμῶν ἀγάπῃ, which might also mean th ed 


amor in γοβΪ So Thue. 2, 92 ἡ ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων βοήθεια, Dion. H. IV. 
2235 πολὺν ἐκ τῶν παρόντων κινήσας ἔλεον, Plato, rep. 2, 363 a. τὰς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς 
εὐδοκιμήσεις, Demosth. pac. 24 b.; Polyaen. 5,11; D.S.1,8; 5,39; Exe. 
Vat. p.117; Lucian. conser. hist. 40; ef. Jacobs, Athen. 321 sq. and Anthol. 
pal. 1.1, 159; Schaef. Soph. Aj. p. 228; Ellendt, Arrian. Al. 1.329. Also 
Rom. xi. 27 ἡ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ διαθήκη must be explained in the same way. Cf. 
Xen. C. 5, 5, 13; Isocr. Demon. p. 18; Arrian. Al. 5, 18, 10 (Fr. in loc. 
and Schoem. ad Isaeum p.193). On Jno.i. 14 see Liicke. None of these 
passages contains an unmeaning circumlocution. And in 1 Cor. ii. 12 οὐ 
τὸ πνεῆμα τοῦ κόσμου ἐλάβομεν, ἀλλὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκ θεοῦ, the apostle 
has of set purpose employed in the parallel τὸ ἐκ θεοῦ (not τὸ πν. θεοῦ or τὸ 
θεοῦ). No tolerably attentive reader will admit the alleged circumlocution 
for the Gen. by means of év (see Koppe, Eph. p. 60), in proof of which 
1 Cor. ii. 7; Eph. ii. 21; Tit. iii. 5; 2 Pet. ii, 7 are adduced. Nor does 
κατά constitute a mere circumlocution for the Genitive in the examples 
usually quoted. In Rom. ix. 11 ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις means the purpose 
according to, in consequence of, election. In Rom. xi. 21 of κατὰ φύσιν 
κλάδοι are the branches according to nature i.e. the natural branches. So 
Heb. xi. 7 ἡ κατὰ πίστιν δικαιοσύνη. In Heb. ix. 19, too, κατὰ τὸν νόμον, 
if referred to πάσης ἐντολῆς, would not be put for τοῦ νόμου, as Bleek per- 
ceived. Yet, see above, § 22,7. More pertinent examples are found in 
Greek writers; as, Diod. 5.1, 65 ἡ κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπόθεσις the abdication 
of the government (literally, as regards the government), 4,13; Exe. Vat. 
p- 103; Arrian. Al. 1, 18,12; Mtth. 866. On εὐαγγ. κατὰ Mar. etc. see 
Fr. (cf. instances in the nova biblioth. Lubec. II. 105 sq.). It is quite 
erroneous to take τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθήματα 1 Pet. i.11 for τὰ Χριστοῦ 
παθήματα (v. 1). It means (similar to περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος vs. 10) 
the sufferings (destined) for Christ. 

It is a different matter, when a Genitive dependent on a noun is ren- 
dered by means of a preposition because the (corresponding) verb prefers 
this construction ; as, κοινωνία ὑμῶν εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον Phil. i. 5 cf. iv. 15. 


12 Cor. ix. 2 6 ἐξ ὑμῶν ζῆλος ἠρέθισε τοὺς πλείονας is referable to attraction. 
25 


207 


194 § 30. GENITIVE. 


So probably also ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν (after God) 1 Pet. iii. 21, cf. 2 Sam. 


xi. 7 ἐπερωτᾶν εἰς θεόν. 


175 4. The same sort of direct dependence occurs in the connection 
δι οἱ of the Genitive with verbal adjectives and participles whose signi- 
fication is not such that they (the verbs from which they come) 
could regularly govern the Genitive (2 Pet. ii. 14 μεστοὺς μοιχαλίδος, 
Matt. x. 10 ἄξιος τῆς τροφῆς, Heb. iii. 1 κλήσεως μέτοχοι etc. see 
No. 8; Eph. ii. 12 ξένοι τῶν διαθηκῶν etc.) ; as, 1 Cor. ii..13 λόγοι 
διδακτοὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου, see above, p. 189, 2 Pet. ii. 14 καρδίαν 
γεγυμνασμένην πλεονεξίας cf. Iliad. 5, 6 λελουμένος ὠκεάνοιο, Soph. 
183 Aj. 807 φωτὸς ἠπατημένη, 1353 φίλων νικώμενος, and with 1 Cor. 
Τὰ οἱ. especially Soph. El. 844 κείνης διδακτά, with 2 Pet. Philostr. her. 
2, 15 θαλάττης οὔπω γεγυμνασμένοι, 3, 1 Néctopa πολέμων πολλῶν 
γεγυμνασμένον, 10, 1 σοφίας ἤδη γεγυμνασμένον, see Boisson. Philostr. 
her. p. 451. We resolve all these Genitives by a preposition : 
taught of (by) the Holy Spirit, bathed in the ocean, inured to the 
sea, etc. And perhaps in the simple language of antiquity the 
Genitive in such constructions was regarded as the whence case ; 
see Hartung, 8.17. According to this view the two following 
passages also are easily explained: Heb. iii. 12 καρδία πονηρὰ ἀπι- 
otias a heart evil (with respect to) unbelief (where ἀπιστία is that 
which establishes the πονηρία ; substantively πονηρία ἀπιστίας the 
Genitive (of apposition) would seem quite natural ; similarly Wisd. 
Xviii. 3 ἥλιον ἀβλαβῆ φιλοτίμου ξενιτείας παρέσχες, see Monk, Eurip. 
Alcest. 751; Mtth. 811, 818. Secondly, Jas. i. 18 ἀπείραστος κακῶν, 
which most expositors render: wntempted (that cannot be tempted) 
by evil (ef. Soph. Antig. 847 ἄκλαυτος φίλων, Aeschyl. Theb. 875 
κακῶν ἀτρυμονες Schwenck, Aeschyl. Eumen. 96); Schulthess, © 
however, translates it: inexperienced in evil. The parallelism 
with πειράζει does not favor the last interpretation. The active 
acceptation in the Aethiopic version, not tempting to evil, is to be 
rejected more on the ground that the πειράζει δὲ αὐτὸς οὐδένα fol- 
lowing would be tautological (for the apostle, as the δέ shows, 
208 must intend to say something different from dzreip.), and also that 
ἀπείρ. does not occur in the active sense, than, as Schulth. thinks, 
on account of the Genitive κακῶν. The Genitive has great latitude 
of import, at least in the poets and in such writers as approach a 
poetic or rhetorical diction. ᾿Απείρ. κακῶν might denote not temp- 
ting in respect to evil, just as well as in Soph. Aj. 1405 λουτρῶν 


1 On the active and passive acceptation of verbals see Wer, Soph. Antig. I. 162. 





§ 80. GENITIVE. 195 


ὁσίων ἐπίκαιρος suitable for holy washings, or in Her. 1, 196 παρθένοι 
γάμων ὡραῖαι ripe for marriage. 

Paul’s expression κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Rom. i. 6 should not be brought 
under this rule, as is still done by Thiersch. It means, according to the 
apostle’s view of κλῆσις elsewhere, Christ’s called, i.e. called (by God) who 
are Christ's, belong to Christ. On the other hand, we may refer to this 
head ὅμοιός τινος Jno. viii. 55 (this adj. regularly governs the Dat. [which 
case, indeed, even in the passage just mentioned Lchm. placed in the text, 
but against the balance of authorities and against Cod. Sin. also]) Mtth..873 ; 176 
Schneider, Plat. civ. II. 104; ILI. 46 (on similis aliew‘us and the like, sth ed. 
see Zumpt, lat. Gr. 5. 365 f.), and ἐγγύς with the Gen. Jno. xi. 18; Rom. 

x. 8; xiii. 11; Heb. vi. 8; viii. 13, etc., the usual construction here, along 
with which, however, ἐγγύς tux occurs ; see Bleek, Hebr. II. 11. 209 ; Mtth. 
812. Even adjectives compounded with σύν are sometimes followed by 184 
the Genitive ; as, σύμμορφος τῆς εἰκόνος Rom. viii. 29 (Mtth. 864). τὰ ed. 


5. Most closely related to the simple Genitive of dependence 
after substantives and in reality only an expansion of that Genitive 
into a clause, is the very common εἶναί or γίνεσθαί twos. This 
construction has a still more diversified use in Greek prose (Krii. 
28 f.; Mdv. 57 f.; Ast, Lexic. Platon. I. 621), than in the N. T.; 
and was formerly explained by assuming that a preposition or a 
substantive was understood. 

In the N. T. may be distinguished, 

a. The Genitive of the whole, of the class (Plur.) and of the 
sphere (Sing.) to which one belongs, 1 Tim. i. 20 ὧν ἐστὶν ‘Tyevaios 
of whom is (to whom belongs) Hym., 2 Tim. i. 15; Acts xxiii. 6 
(1 Mace. ii. 18; Plato, Protag. 342e.; Xen. A. 1, 2, 8), 1 Thess. 
v. 5, 8 οὐκ ἐσμὲν νυκτὸς οὐδὲ σκότους ... ἡμεῖς ἡμέρας ὄντες belonging 
to the night, to the day, Acts ix. 2. 

Ὁ. The Genitive of the ruler, master, possessor, etc., Matt. xxii. 
28 τίνος τῶν ἑπτὰ ἔσται γυνή; 1 Cor. iii. 21 πάντα ὑμῶν ἐστιν 
(Xen. A. 2,1, 4; Ptol. 1, 8, 1), vi. 19 οὐκ ἐστὲ ἑαυτῶν ye are not 
your own — do not belong to yourselves, 2 Cor. iv. 7 ἵνα ἡ ὑπερβολὴ 
τῆς δυνάμεως ἢ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἡμῶν that ... may be God’s and 
not of us, x. T Χριστοῦ εἶναι, Rom. viii. 9 (similarly 1 Cor. i. 12 of 
heads of parties ἐγώ εἰμε Παύλου, cf. Diog. L. 6, 82). Close to 209 
this comes Acts i. T οὐχ ὑμῶν ἐστι γνῶναι etc. it does not belong to 
you —it is not in your power to know (Plato, Gorg. 500 a.; Xen. 
Oec. 1, 2), Mark xii. 7 ἡμῶν ἔσται ἡ κληρονομία (Matt, v. 3), 1 Pet. 
iii. 8, further Heb. v. 14 τελείων ἐστὶν ἡ στερεὰ τροφή belongs to 
(is for) mature persons, etc. 


196 § 80, GENITIVE. 


ce. The Genitive of a quality in which one participates (sing. 
abstract), in diversified applications, 1 Cor. xiv. 88 οὐκ ἔστιν ἀκα- 
ταστασίας ὁ θεός, Heb. x. 89 ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἐσμὲν ὑποστολῆς ... ἀλλὰ 
πίστεως etc. (Plato, apol. 28 4.). Likewise the concrete Gen. Acts 
ix. 2 twas τῆς ὁδοῦ ὄντας, particularly the Genitive of age, Mark 
V. 42 ἣν ἐτῶν δώδεκα, Luke ii. 42; iii. 23; Acts iv. 22; Tob. xiv. 2, 
11; Plato, lege. 4,721 ἃ. In these passages the subject is a person, 
but in the following it isa thing: Heb. xii. 11 πᾶσα παιδεία οὐ 
δοκεῖ χαρᾶς εἶναι is not (matter) of joy (this, however, might be 
referred also to a.), 2 Pet. i. 20 πᾶσα προφητεία γραφῆς ἰδίας ἐπιλύ- 
σεως ov γίνεται. Moreover, this construction of εἰμί, when persons 
are the subject, is sometimes made more animated, in Oriental 
style, by the insertion of υἱός or τέκνον ; cf. 1 Thess. v. 5 ὑμεῖς υἱοὶ 
φωτός ἐστε καὶ viol ἡμέρας.1 

The same relations are expressed by the Genitive when the verb 
εἶναι is omitted, Phil. iii. 5 ἐγὼ... φυλῆς Βενιαμίν. 

6. The Genitive, as the clearly defined case of departure, motion 

185 whence, appears, too, in the diction of the N. T., joined to verbs 

Mth el. (and adjectives), with a diversity of application natural to this rela- 

177 tion. (This diversity, however, is more copious in Greek prose, and 

fel κα the N. T. the Gen. is frequently strengthened by prepositions.) 
As separation from is related to proceeding from, and as that 
which departs and is separated may often be conceived as a part 
of the remaining whole, the Genitive, because the case of procecd- 
ing from, is also naturally the case of separation and of partition. 
The- former, the Genitive of separation and removal, as the more 
limited, we shall illustrate first. 

As words which express the idea of separation or removal are 
usually construed with the Genitive by the Greeks even in prose, — 
e.g. ἐλευθεροῦν twos to free from something, κωλύειν, ὑποχωρεῖν, 
παύειν, διαφέρειν, ὑστερεῖν τινος, see Mtth. 829 ff, 845; Bhdy. 179 f. 
(although in such circumstances suitable prepositions are pretty 
frequently inserted),—so in the N. T. also the following verbs 
are construed with the Genitive: μετασταθῆναι Luke xvi. 4, ἀστοχεῖν 
1 Tim. i. 6, παύεσθαι 1 Pet. iv. 1, κωλύειν Acts xxvii. 48 (cf. Xen. 
C. 2, 4,23; Anab. 1, 6,2; Pol. 2, 52,8 a.), διαφέρειν Matt. x. 31; 
1 Cor. xv. 41 οἷο. (Xen. 6. 8, 2, 21, cf. Krii. Dion. H. p. 462), ἀπο- 

210 στερεῖσθαι 1 Tim. vi. 5,2 also ὑστερεῖν to be behind one 2 Cor. xi. 5; 


1 We Germans also say both du bist des Todes and du bist ein Kind des Todes. But 
this does not prove that the former expression is elliptical (Kwinoel ad Heb. x. 39). 
2 Lachm., on the authority of good Codd., has adopted in Acts xix. 27... μέλλειν τε 


§ 30. GENITIVE. 197 


xii. 11, see Bleek on Heb. iv. 1 and ξένοι τῶν διαθηκῶν Eph. ii. 12. 

The interposition of prepositions, however, predominates : 

a. With verbs of disjoining, freeing, aud being free, invariably 
(Mtth. 665; Bhdy. 181); as, χωρίζειν ἀπό Rom. viii. 35; 1 Cor. 
vii. 10; Heb. vii. 26 (Plat. Phaed. 67 ¢., but Polyb. 5, 111, 2); 
λύειν ἀπό Luke xiii. 16; 1 Cor. vii. 27; ἐλευθεροῦν ἀπὸ Rom. vi. 18, 
22; viii. 2,21 (Thue. 2, 71, also with ἐκ Mtth. 830) ; ῥύεσθαι ἀπό 
Matt. vi. 13 (2 Sam. xix. 9; Ps. xvi. 13 f.), with ἐκ Luke i. 74; 
Rom. vii. 24, etc., Exod. vi.6; Job xxxiii. 30; Ps. xviii. 15; σώζειν 
ἀπό Rom. v. 9 (Ps. Ixviii. 15), and more frequently with ἐκ, as in 
Jas. v.20; Heb. v.7 (2 Sam. xxii. 8f.; 1 Kings xix. 17) ; λυτροῦν 
ἀπό Tit. ii. 14; Ps. exviii. 134 (but 2X. twos Fabric. Pseudepigr. 
I. 710); καθαρίζειν ἀπό 1 Jno. i. 7; 2 Cor. vii. 1; Heb. ix. 14, 
accordingly καθαρὸς ἀπό Acts xx. 26, cf. Tob. iii. 14; Demosth. 
Neaer. 528 c. (with ἐκ Appian. Syr. 59) and ἀθῶος ἀπό (79 585) 
Matt. xxvii. 24, cf. Krebs, observ. 73; Gen. xxiv. 41; Num. v.19, 
31, with Dat. Josh. ii. 17, 19f.; similarly λούειν ἀπό (concisely 
for by washing cleanse from) Acts xvi. 383; Rev. i. 5. 

b. Where the construction with the Genitive alone is also used ; 
as, ἀναπαύεσθαι ἐκ τῶν κόπων Rev. xiv. 18, παυσάτω τὴν γλῶσσαν 
ἀπὸ κακοῦ 1 Pet. iii. 10 (Esth. ix. 16; Soph. Electr. 987; Thuc. 7, 186 
18); ὑστερεῖν ἀπό Heb. xii. 15 is probably a pregnant construction. “4 


The notion of separation and removal lies at the basis also of the Hel- 
lenistic construction κρύπτειν (τι) ἀπό τινος Luke xix. 42 (for which classic 178 
authors use κρύπτειν τινά τι) ; it is properly a constructio praegnans (cf. Sept. éth ed. 
Gen. iv. 14; xviii. 17; 1 Sam. iii. 18, etc.). To verbs of remaining behind 
‘anything (ὑστερεῖν twos) may be referred 2 Pet. iii. 9 οὐ βραδύνει ὃ κύριος 
τῆς ἐπαγγελίας (οὐ βραδύς ἐστι τῆς ἐπαγγελίας), cf. ὑστέρουν τῆς βοηθείας 
Diod. 5. 18,110. Even the Syriac has joined ἐπαγγ. with βραδ. 

T. The Genitive of proceeding from and of derivation occurs in 
prose in its simplest form in dpyopuat twos I begin from (with) some- 
thing (Hartung, 14), δέχομαί τινος I receive from somebody (Hm. 
Vig. 877), δέομαί τινος I beg of some one (Mtth. 834), ἀκούω τινός I 
hear from somebody ; then yevouat, ἐσθίω τινός (e.g. ἄρτου, μέλιτος} I 
taste, eat, of something, ὀνίνημί τινος I derive advantage, enjoyment, 211 
from something ; finally δίδωμί τινος, λαμβάνω τινός 1 give, take, of 
something; Hm. Opuse. I. 178. The Genitive denotes in all these 
cases the object out of which hearing, eating, giving etc. comes ; 


καὶ καθαιρεῖσθαι τῆς μεγαλειότητος αὐτῆς. Still I agree with Mey. in thinking 
this reading (which most probably is an error of the transcribers, see Bengel) too weak 
for the style of the passage. 


198 § 30. GENITIVE. 


from which that proceeds which is eaten, tasted, given, ete. ; and, 
in the last expressions, indicates the mass, the whole, of which a 
part is enjoyed, given, ete. Consequently these Genitives may be 
regarded also as Genitivi partitivi; for when the whole, or the ob- 
ject simply, is meant, the strict Object-case, the Accusative, is used. 
In the diction of the N.T. the Genitive, in many of those construe- 
tions, is strengthened by a preposition. As respects details we notice, 
a. “Δέομαι has without exception the Genitive of the person (Matt. 
ix. 38; Luke v. 12; viii. 28; Acts viii. 22, etc.), the object of re- 
quest being subjoined in the Ace.; as, 2 Cor. viii. 4 δεόμενοι ἡμῶν 
τὴν χάριν etc. (Weber, Demosth. p. 163). 
b. Of verbs of giving with the Genitive we have only one instance, 
Rev. ii. 17 δώσω αὐτῷ τοῦ μάννα (where some Codd. have δ. a. da- 
γεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ w.asacorrection).! On the other hand,in Rom.i. 11; 
1 Thess. ii. 8 the apostle could not have written μεταδιδόναι yapi- 
σματος or εὐαγγελίου (Mtth. 798), as in the first passage a partic- 
ular charisma as a whole (in fact he says χάρισμά τι) is meant; 
and in the second, the Gospel as something indivisible. Paul did 
not purpose to communicate a portion of (from) a spiritual gift, 
or a portion of (from) the Gospel. 
c. Verbs of enjoying or partaking : προςλαμβάνεσθαι τροφῆς Acts 
XXVil. 36, μεταλαμβάνειν τροφῆς Acts ii. 46; xxvii. 33 f., γεύεσθαι 
τοῦ δείπνου Luke xiv. 24 (figuratively Heb. vi. 4 γεύεσθαι τῆς δωρεᾶς 
187 τ. ἐπουρανίου, γεύεσθαι θανάτου Matt. xvi. 28 ; Luke ix. 27; Heb. ii. 
th el. 9, ete.), and with Gen. of pers. Philem. 20 ἐγώ σου ὀναίμην ἐν κυρίῳ 
(ef. also Odyss. 19, 68), Rom. xv. 24 ἐὰν ὑμῶν ... ἐμπλησθῶ. 
But γεύεσθαι governs also the Acc.: Jno. 11. 9 ἐγεύσατο τὸ ὕδωρ, 
179 Heb. vi. 52 (as frequently in Hebraizing Greek, Job. xii.11; Sirach 
bth ed. xxi. 24; Tob. vii.11; but probably never in Greek authors).8 


1 This very passage clearly shows the distinction between the Genitive and the Acc., 
for καὶ δώσω ψῆφον λευκήν follows; cf. Heliod. 2, 23, 100 ἐπεῤῥόφουν ὁ μὲν τοῦ ὕδατος, 
ὁ δὲ καὶ οἶνον. ‘ 

2 Bengel, on Heb. vi. 4, appears to trifle in attempting to make a distinction in this 
passage between γεύεσθαι with the Gen. and with the Acc. 

8 In the sense of eating up, consuming, φαγεῖν and ἐσθίειν have regularly the Ace. 
(Matt. xii. 4; Rev. x. 10): οἷ, for distinction, 1 Cor. ix. 7. They also take the Acc, 
when one’s food in general, merely, is described, — of which he ordinarily makes use, 
which he lives upon; e.g. Mark i. 6 ἦν Ἰωάννης... ἐσθίων ἀκρίδας καὶ μέλι ἄγριον, 
Rom. xiv. 21; Matt. xv. 2; 1 Cor. viii. 7; x. 8f. (Jno, vi. 58), ef. Diog. L. 6, 45. It 
may be stated generally, that ἐσθίειν τι would in no passage be found to be entirely without 
justification (cf. even 2 Thess. iii. 12) and thus the absence of ἐσθίειν τινός (together with . 
ἀπό or ἔκ twos) would cease to be strange. Luke xv. 16 ἀπὸ τῶν κερατίων ὧν ἤσθιον οἱ 
χοῖροι is probably an attraction. Besides, we find ἐσθίειν, πίνειν τι regularly in the 
Sept. also; only in Num. xx. 19 ἐὰν τοῦ ὕδατός σου πίωμεν Occurs. 


§ 80. GENITIVE. 199 


Verbs of eating of as well as giving and taking of are, moreover, 212 
in the N. T. invariably joined to their nouns by prepositions : 

a) By ἀπό; as, Luke xxiv. 42 ἐπέδωκαν αὐτῷ ... ἀπὸ μελισσίου 
κηρίου, xx. 10; Matt. xv. 27 τὰ κυνάρια ἐσθίει ἀπὸ τῶν ψιχίων τῶν 
παιδίων (οἵ. ya ὅξ and φαγεῖν ἀπό Fabric. Pseudepigr. I. 706), 
Luke xxii. 18 οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ γεννήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου, cf. Jer. 

li. (xxviii.) 7, Acts ii. 17 ἐκχεῶ ἀπὸ τ. πνεύματός μου (LXX.), v. 2 
καὶ ἐνοσφίσατο ἀπὸ τῆς τιμῆς, Jno. xxi. 10 ἐνέγκατε ἀπὸ τῶν ὀψα- 
ρίων, Mark xii. 2 ἵνα ... λάβῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ καρποῦ τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος. 

b) By ἐκ; as, 1 Cor. xi. 28 ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου ἐσθιέτω, ix. T (2 Sam. 

xii. 3; 2 Kings iv. 40; Sir. xi. 17; Judith xii. 2); Jno. iv. 14 
ὃς ἂν πίῃ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος,1 vi. 50 ὁ ἄρτος ... Wa τις ἐξ αὐτοῦ φάγῃ, 
1 Jno. iv. 13 ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος αὑτοῦ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν. But we must 
not refer to this head Heb. xiii. 10 φαγεῖν ἐκ θυσιαστηρίου, as if it 
were equivalent to ἐκ θυσίας ; for θυσιαστ. means altar. To eat 
of the altar is simply equivalent to, of the sacrifice (offered on the 
altar). Probably there is no instance of ἐσθίειν ἀπό or ἐκ in classic 
Greek ; but ἀπολαύειν ἀπό twos is akin to it, Plat. rep. 8, 395 ¢.; 
10, 606 b.; Apol. 31 b. 

Of verbs of perceiving, ἀκούω is construed with the Genitive 
of the person (to hear from—out of—one), to hear one; as, Matt. 
xvii. 5; Mark vii. 14; Luke ii. 46; Jno. iii. 29; ix. 31; Rev. vi.1,3; 
Rom. x. 142— (the object is expressed in the Acc., Acts i. 4 ἣν ἠκού- 
σατέ μου, Lucian, dial. deor. 20, 13). Yet we find likewise ἀκούειν 188 
τι ἀπό in 1 Jno. i. 5, ἐκ in 2 Cor. xii. 6 (also Odyss. 15, 374), παρά th εἰ. 
in Acts x. 22, where in classic Greek the Gen. alone would have 
been sufficient. A Genitive of the thing occurs with ἀκούω in 
Jno. ν. 25; Heb. iv. 7 ἀκ. φωνῆς, Luke xv. 25 ἤκουσε συμφωνίας 
καὶ χορῶν, Mark xiv. 64 ἠκούσατε τῆς βλασφημίας, 1 Macc. x. 34; 
Bar. iii. 4 (Lucian. Hale. 2; gall. 10; Xen.C. 6, 2,13, etc.). On the 180 
other hand, the Accusative follows in Luke y. 1 ἀκούειν τὸν λόγον 6th od 
τ. θεοῦ, Ino. viii. 40 τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ἣν ἤκουσα παρὰ τ. θεοῦ etc. In αν 
the last passages the object is referred to as a connected whole, and 
the hearing meant is intellectual; while in the previous passages 


1 Otherwise in 1 Cor. x. 4 ἔπινον ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, where Fiatt’s 
explanation is a failure. 

2 Others, Riick. and Fr., take the Genitive of the person here οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν thus : of 
whom (de quo) they have not heard (as ἀκούειν τινός is used also in Iliad. 24,490). This 
does not appear to me probable (the construction in this sense is entirely poetical), 
much less necessary : one hears Christ when one hears the Gospel in which he speaks ; 
and thus ἀκούειν Χριστόν Eph, iv. 21 is said of those who have not heard Christ in person. 
Philippi on the passage is superficial. 


200 § 80, GENITIVE. 


the object is primarily certain sounds only, or words received by 
the bodily ear. Cf. Rost 532 f. | 


The Genitive with τυγχάνειν (ἐπιτυγχάνειν) which invariably occurs in 
the N. T. (on the Acc. see Hm. Vig. 760; Bhdy.176),) as in Luke xx. 35; 
Acts xxiv. 3; xxvii. 3, etc., is perhaps in its origin to be explained by the 
preceding rule; yet we find it also where the whole object is meant. In 
the same way the earlier Greek authors almost always construe κληρονομεῖν 
(inherit, also participate in) with the Genitive (Kypke II. 381), but the 
later and the N.T. writers connect with it the Accusative of the thing ; 
as, Matt. v. 4; xix. 29; Gal. v. 21 (Polyb. 15, 22, 8) see Fischer-Well. 
111. I. 868; Lob. Phryn. 129 ; Mtth. 802. 

Aayxdavew has the Accusative in Acts i, 17; 2 Pet. i. 1 ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν 
λαχοῦσι πίστιν (where πίστις does not mean faith in an ideal sense, thé faith 
in which every Christian gets a share by his conversion, but the subjective 
faith of these Christians) Mtth. 801. But in Lukei. 9 the Gen. is used (to 
obtain by lot) ; cf. Brunck, Soph. Electr. 364; Jacobs, Anthol. pal. IIT. 803. 


8. In the foregoing examples we already perceive that the notion 
of proceeding from something slides over into that of participation 
in something; but the partitive import of the Genitive is still more 
plainly disclosed in such combinations as μετέχειν τινός, πληροῦν 
τίνος, θυγγάνειν τινός. With the Genitive are construed, 

a. Words that express the notion of having a share, partaking, 
wanting (wishing to partake) Mtth. 797 ; as, κοινωνεῖν Heb. ii. 14, 
κοινωνός 1 Cor. x.18; 1 Pet. v. 1, συγκοινωνός Rom. xi. 17, μετέχειν 
1 Cor. ix. 12; x. 21; Heb. v. 13, μεταλαμβάνειν Heb. vi. 7; xii. 10, 
μέτοχος Heb. iii. 1, also χρήζειν 2 Matt. vi. 32; 2 Cor. iii. 1, ete., 
προςδεῖσθαι Acts xvii. 25. But κοινωνεῖν also takes— and in the 

189 N. T. more commonly — the Dat. of the thing ; as, 1 Tim. v. 22 μὴ 
Tth el. κοινώνει ἁμαρτίαις ἀλλοτρίαις, Rom. xv. 27; 1 Pet. iv. 13; 2 Jno. 11 
214 (Wisd. vi. 25), and in a transitive acceptation eis, Phil. iv. 15 οὐδε- 
μία μοι ἐκκλησία ἐκοινώνησεν eis λόγον δόσεως. Cf. Plat. rep.5,453 Ὁ. 
δυνατὴ φύσις ἡ θήλεια τῇ τοῦ ἄῤῥενος γένους κοινωνῆσαι εἰς ἅπαντα 
τὰ ἔργα. Act. Apocr. p. 91. The Dat. of the thing with κοινωνεῖν 
and μετέχειν sometimes occurs in Greek authors (Thue. 2, 16; 
Demosth. cor. c. 18) Poppo, Thue. 111. 11. 77; and, in respect to 
κοινωνεῖν, is to be explained probably from the notion of community 
implied in the word (1 Tim., as above, cannot be resolved into 


1 But according to good authorities [Sin. also] ἐπιτυγχάνειν has the Acc. in Rom. 
xi. 7; see Fr. 

2 Though in Luke xi. 8 several Codd. have ὅσον χρήζει, neither from this, nor from 
the construction χρήζειν τι (Mth. 834), should it be concluded, as is done by Kiihnél, 
that xp. is construed with the Acc. also (in the sense of desiring, demanding). 


“ΝΥ ΨΥ a Ἢ 


§ 80, GENITIVE. 201 


μηδέν cot καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἀλλοτρ. κοινὸν ἔστω). Further, 181 
μετέχειν is once construed with the interposition of ἐκ, 1 Cor. x. 17 δ οὶ, 
ἐκ Tod ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχομεν. Jam not aware that a similar instance 

is to be found in any Greek author. 

b. Words of abounding, filling,| being empty, wanting (Mtth. 
826 ff.) ; as, Rom. xv. 13 ὁ θεὸς πληρώσαι ὑμᾶς πάσης χαρᾶς καὶ 
εἰρήνης, Luke i. 53 πεινῶντας ἐνέπλησεν ἀγαθῶν, Acts v. 38 πεπλη- 
ρώκατε τὴν ᾿Ἰερουσαλὴμ τῆς διδαχῆς ὑμῶν (ii. 28 Sept.), Jno. ii. 7 
γεμίσατε τὰς ὑδρίας ὕδατος (vi. 13), Matt. xxii. 10 ἐπλήσθη ὁ γάμος 
ἀνακειμένων (Acts xix. 29), Jno. i. 14 πλήρης χάριτος, 2 Pet. ii. 14 
ὀφθαλμοὶ μεστοὶ μοιχαλίδος, Luke xi. 89 τὸ ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν γέμει 
ἁρπαγῆς καὶ πονηρίας, Jas. i. 5 εἴ τις ἡμῶν λείπεται σοφίας (Matthiae, 
Eurip. Hippol. 323), Rom. iii. 23 πάντες ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ 
θεοῦ (cf. Lob. Phryn. p. 237), see also Acts xiv. 17; xxvii.38; Luke 
xv. 17; xxii. 35; Jno. xix. 29; Rom. xv. 14, 24; Rev. xv. 8. 
Verbs of fulness are but rarely joined to ἀπό (Luke xv. 16 ἐπε- 
θύμει γεμίσαιν τὴν κοιλίαν αὑτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν κερατίων, xvi. 21) or 
ἐκ (yeuifew ἐκ Rev. νἱῖ!, δ; χορτάξζ. ἐκ Rev. xix. 21, but yopragew 
τινός Lam. iii. 15, 29, μεθύειν and μεθύσκεσθαι ἐκ Rev. xvii. 2, 6 ef. 
Lucian. dial. ἃ. 6, 3).2 Altogether solecistic is Rev. xvii. 3 γέμον 
τὰ ὀνόματα cf. 4. [This solecism is probably to be explained by 
the analogy of πεπληρωμένοι καρπὸν δικαιοσ. Phil. i. 11 and the 
like.] The Dat. after πληροῦν, μεθύσκεσθαι etc. rests on a concep- 
tion essentially different; see ὃ 31,7. How 1 Cor. i. 7 ὑστερεῖσθαι 
ἐν μηδενὶ χαρίσματι must be taken, is obvious; ef. Plat. rep. 6, 484 ἃ. 

ὁ. Verbs of touching (Mtth. 803) so far forth as the touching 190 
affects only a part of the object; as, Mark v. 80 ἥψατο τῶν ἱματίων Mh eb 
(vi. 56; Luke xxii.51; Jno. xx. 17; 2 Cor. vi. 17, etc.), Heb. xii. 20 215 
κἂν θηρίον θίγῃ τοῦ ὄρους (xi. 28). Under this head comes also 
Luke xvi. 24 βάπτειν ὕδατος, Bhdy. 168 (βάπτειν eis ὕδωρ Plato, 
Tim. 73 e.; Ael. 14, 39). 

ἃ. Verbs of laying hold of, when only a part of the whole is 
taken hold of; as, Matt. xiv. 31 ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἐπελάβετο αὐτοῦ, 

1 Τὸ this head may be referred also πλούσιος with the Gen. Eurip. Orest. 394. In 
the N. T., however, the preposition ἐν is always used; as, Eph. ii. 4 πλούσιος ἐν ἐλέει 
(rich in mercy), Jas.ii.5. Cf. πλουτεῖν, πλουτίζεσθαι ἔν τινι 1 Tim. vi. 18; 1 Cor. i. 5, ete. 

2 On πληθύνειν ἀπό Athen. 13, 569 see Schweighaeus. add. et corrig. p. 478. In Matt. 
Xxili. 25 ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν (cup and platter) ἐξ ἁρπαγῆς καὶ ἀκρασίας is probably to be 
rendered : they are filled from plunder, their contents arise from plunder. Luke, on the 
other hand, transfers the fidness to the Pharisees themselves, and therefore writes: τὸ 
ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν γέμει ἁρπαγῆς etc. Likewise ἐκ τῆς ὀσμῆϑ in Jno. xii. 3 ἡ οἰκία ἐπληρώθη 
ἐκ τῆς ὀσμῆς τοῦ μύρου does not stand for the Genitive, but denotes that wherefrom the 


filling of the house came ; tt was filled from (by) the odor of the ointment (with fragrance). 
26 


202 § 80. GENITIVE. 


ef. Theoph. ch. 4 (with his hand he could take hold of Peter, just 
in the act of sinking, by a part of the body only, perhaps by the 
arm), Luke ix. 47; in a different application Mark ix. 27 κρατήσας 
αὐτὸν τῆς χειρός, Acts iii. 7 πιάσας αὐτὸν τῆς δεξιᾶς χειρός (by the 
hand), cf. Plato, Parm. 126; Xen. A.1,6,10; hence usually with 
the Genitive of a limb; as, Luke viii. 54 κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῆς, 
Acts xxiii. 19 (Isa. xli. 13; xlii. 6; Gen. xix.16). On the other 
hand, κρατεῖν or λαμβάνειν, ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαί twa always denotes 
182 seize, apprehend one, i.e. his whole person; as, Matt. xii. 11; xiv. 3; 
bth ed. xviii. 28; Acts ix. 27; xvi.19; [xviii 17. Yet it is doubtful 
whether ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι is ever joined to an Acc. of the person, 
since (according to the analogy of Luke xiv. 4 ἐπιλαβόμενος ἰάσατο 
αὐτόν.) the Acc. in Acts ix. 27 is probably governed by ἤγαγεν, in 
xvi. 19 by εἵλκυσαν, in xviii. 17 by ἔτυπτον. See also Mey. on 
Acts ix. 27 (8ded.), and Bttm. Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. 
p- 140]. The same distinction is observed in the figurative use of 
these verbs ; as, Genitive, Heb. ii. 16; Lukei. 54; 1 Tim. vi. 2 - 
(Xen. Ὁ. 2, 3,6); Accusative, 2 Thess. ii. 15; Col. 11. 19. etc. But 
κρατεῖν hold fast Heb. iv. 14 and vi. 18 and ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι lay hold 
of 1 Tim. vi. 12, 19 (Ael. 14, 27), are construed with the Genitive; 
in both instances, however, with reference to a good which is des- 
tined for many (ὁμολογία, édmis), and which the individual, for 
his respective part, holds fast or attains. See, in general, Mtth. 
803 f. In an ideal sense ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι is construed with a 
double Genitive; as, Luke xx. 20 ἵνα ἐπιλάβωνται αὐτοῦ λόγου that 
they might catch him by a word, 26 ἐπιλαβέσθαι αὐτοῦ ῥήματος (cf. 
literally Xen. A.4,7,12). Lastly, to this head is to be referred the 
construction ἔχεσθαί twos, hold by, adhere to anything (pendere 
ex), Bleek, Heb. IT. II. 220f.; Mtth. 803, and ἀντέχεσθαί τινος. 
Both these verbs are thus used in the N. T. only in a figurative 
sense ; as, Heb.vi.9 τὰ κρείσσονα καὶ ἐχόμενα σωτηρίας, Matt. vi. 24 
Tov ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου καταφρονήσει, 1 Thess. v. 14 ἀντέ- 
χεσθε τῶν ἀσθενῶν, Tit. i. 9 ἀντεχόμενος τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ 
λόγου. Also ἀνέχεσθαί τινος endure any thing or any one, comes 
under this head, for it denotes properly to hold to a person or 
thing (Matt. xvii. 17; Heb. xiii. 22; Eph. iv. 2), ef. Kypke II. 93; 
likewise ἔνοχός (éveyopuevds) Twos, as Matt. xxvi. 66 ἔνοχος θανάτου, 
or 1 Cor. xi. 27 ἔνοχος τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ κυρίου (Jas. 
210 ii. 10), for in all cases a being held by, bound to, something is 
expressed, —in the first passage, to a punishment which must be 
191 suffered, in the second, to a matter for which satisfaction is due. 
th el. See Fr. Mt. p. 223; Bleek, Hebr. II. 1. 340f.; cf. § 31, pp. 210, 213. 


8:80. GENITIVE. 203 


Note 1. The partitive Genitive is sometimes governed by an adverb ; 
as, Heb. ix, 7 ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ once a year, [ Matt. xxviii. 1 ὀψὲ σαββάτων], 
Luke xviii. 12; xvii. 4 (Ptol. geogr. 8, 15, 19; 8, 29, 31; 8, 16, 4, ete.) 
ef. Mdy. δά. 

Note 2. The partitive Genitive occurs not merely in dependence, it also 
makes its appearance sometimes as subject; as, Xen. A. 3, 5,16 ὁπότε... 





σπείσαιντο καὶ ἐπιμίγνυσθαι σφῶν τε πρὸς ἐκείνους Kal ἐκείνων πρὸς αὐτούς and 
(some) of them have intercourse with those ; of those, with them, Thue. 1,115 
(Theophan. I. 77). In the N.T. a similar construction occurs in Acts xxi. 16 
συνῆλθον καὶ τῶν μαθητῶν σὺν ἡμῖν (cf. Pseudarist. p. 120 Haverc. ἐν οἷς καὶ 
βασιλικοὶ ἦσαν καὶ τῶν τιμωμένων ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως). In such cases, 
however, the Genitive is regularly accompanied by a preposition; as, Jno. 
xvi. 17 εἶπον ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ etc. 

9. Moreover, the Genitive is easily to be recognized as the whence 
case when joined 

a. to verbs of accusing, arraigning (sentencing) as Genitive of 
the thing (Mtth. 848), e.g. Acts xix. 40 κινδυνεύομεν ἐγκαλεῖσθαι 
στάσεως, XXV. 11 οὐδέν ἐστιν ὧν οὗτοι κατηγοροῦσί μου, Luke xxiii. 
14 οὐδὲν εὗρον ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τούτῳ αἴτιον ὧν κατηγορεῖτε κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ 
(yet we find also περί τινος de aliqua re Acts xxiii. 29; xxiv. 18, 
ef. Xen. Hell. 1,7, 2, like κρίνεσθαι περί twos Acts xxiii. 6; xxiv. 21) ; 
for the offence of which one is accused is that from, out of which 183 
the κατηγορεῖν arises, or proceeds. We must not, however, fail to Sth ed 
mention that the two preceding verbs are usually in Greek authors 
construed differently, viz. κατηγορεῖν τινός τι (a construction which 
can hardly be proved to occur in the N. T. from Mark xv. 3, ef. 
Lucian. necyom. 19) and ἐγκαλεῖν τινί τι Mtth. 849 f.1 

b. to κατακαυχᾶσθαι boast one’s self of a thing (borrow glory 
from something) Jas. ii. 18. On the other hand, the construction 
ἐπαινεῖν τινά τινος (4 Macc. i. 10; iv. 4; Poppo, Thue. III. I. 661) 
does not occur in the N. T.; for in Luke xvi. 8 τῆς ἀδικίας is 
undoubtedly to be joined to οἰκονόμος, and the object of ἐπαινεῖν is 
expressed only in the clause ὅτε φρονίμως ἐποίησεν. In general, 217 
see on the former construction (Sintenis) in the Leipz. L. Z. 1833, 
I. 1135. Like ἐπαινεῖν the verb μισεῖν has in later Greek the 
Genitive of the thing (Liban. Oratt. p. 120 ἃ. ; Cantacuz. 1. 56). 

c. to verbs signifying to emit an odor (smell, breathe hard), Mtth. 


1 How κατηγορεῖν (properly, maintain, assert against one) comes by the Genitive of a 
person (Matt. xii. 10; Luke xxiii. 2, ete.), is obvious ; but καταγινώσκειν τινός 1 Jno. 
iii. 20 f. is construed exactly in the same manner (Mith. 860). Instead of ἐγκαλεῖν τινι 
(Sir. xlvi. 19) we find in Rom. viii. 33 ἐγκαλ. κατά τινος, which is as easily accounted 
for as κατηγορεῖν εἴς twa Maetzner, Antiph. 207. 


192 
Tth ed. 


184 
Gth αἱ. 


218 


204 § 80. GENITIVE. 


856; for in ὄζειν τινός the Genitive denotes the substance from 
which the ὄξειν emanates. In the N. T. this Gen. occurs only in a 
figurative sense, Acts ix. 1 ἐμπνέων ἀπειλῆς καὶ φόνου panting with, 
breathing of, threatening and slaughter, cf. Aristoph,. eq. 437 οὗτος ἤδη 
κακίας καὶ συκοφαντίας πνεῖ Heliod. 1,2; Ephraem. 2358. Different 
from this are φόνον πνέοντες Theocr. 22, 82, θυμὸν ἐκπνέων Hurip. 
Bacch. 620, where the direct object is expressed : breathing murder, 
courage, the verbs being used as transitive. 

10. The Genitive appears to be removed a little farther from its 
original import, when joined 

a. to verbs of feeling, in order to denote the object towards 
which the feeling is directed; as, σπλαγχνίζεσθαί τινος Matt. 
xvili. 27. But in German also, sich yemandes erbarmen, we find 
the Genitive construction ; and in Greek the object was unquestion- 
ably conceived as operating upon the feeling subject, consequently, 
as the point from which the feeling proceeds, i.e. is generated. 
Most verbs of this kind, however, are construed with the Acc., 
conformably to a different conception of the relation; see ὃ 32, 1 
and Hartung, S. 20. 

b. to verbs of longing and desiring (Mtth. 824 f.), where we 
commonly say, long jor something, hanker after, etc. But the 
Greek conception of ἐπιθυμεῖν τινος (except in connections where 
the Gen. can be taken partitively, as émi@up. σοφίας, to desire of 
wisdom) was such that the longing, the desire, proceeds from 
the good in question, —the good things of themselves eutice men 
to longing. In the N. T. ἐπιθυμεῖν invariably (in Matt. v. 28 
alone we find a var.) takes the Genitive; as, Acts xx. 33 ἀργυρίου 
ἢ χρυσίου ἢ ἱματισμοῦ οὐδενὸς ἐπεθύμησα (1 Tim. ili. 1), so also 
ὀρέγεσθαι 1 Tim. iii. 1 ef τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ 
(Isocr. Demon. p. 24 ὀρεχθῆναι τῶν καλῶν ἔργων Lucian. Tim. 70), 
Heb. xi. 16, and ἱμείρεσθαι 1 Thess. ii. 8. Likewise in the Sept. 
and the Apocrypha (Wisd. vi. 12; 1 Macc. iv. 17; xi. 11, etc.) we 
find ἐπιθυμεῖν τινος the rule (ὀρέγεσθαι does not occur there at 
all), though the verb already begins to be joined as transitive to 
the Acc. Exod. xx.17; Deut. v.21; vii. 25; Mic. ii.2; Job xxxiii. 
20, cf. Wisd. xvi. 3; Ecclus. xvi. 1. The verb ἐπυποθεῖν appears 
constantly with the Acc. even in the earlier Greek (because the 
construction was thus resolved in thought: ποθεῖν or πόθον ἔχειν 
ἐπί τι, after something, cf. Fr. Rom. I. 31), Plat. legge. 9, 855 e.; 
Diod. 8. 17,101; ef. 2 Cor. ix.14; Phil.i.8; 1 Pet. ii. 2. Like- 
wise πεινῆν and διψῆν, which in Greek authors regularly take the 


880, GENITIVE. 205 


Genitive, are joined in the N. T. in a figurative sense (in reference 
to spiritual blessings) with the Acc. (φιλοσοφίαν dup. Hpist. Socr. 
25 p. 53 Allat.) Matt. v. 6 πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες δικαιοσύνην. 
The difference between these two constructions is obvious: dup. 
φιλοσοφίας means to have a thirst for philosophy, while dip. 
φιλοσοφίαν represents philosophy as something indivisible which 193 
one wishes to get possession of. Τῇ ed 
Next to the verbs already mentioned follow, 6. those of thinking 
of, remembering (Mtth. 820); as, Luke xvii. 832 μνημονεύετε τῆς 
γυναικὸς Awt, [1 Thess. i. 3], Luke i. 72 μνησθῆναι διαθήκης, Acts 
xi. 16; 1 Cor. xi.2; Luke xxiii.42; Heb. xiii.2; Jude 17; 2 Pet. 
iii. 2 (also ὑπομιμνήσκειν τινὰ περί τινος 2 Pet. 1. 12). We, too, 
say: einer Sache gedenken, think of a matter, for this process is 
simply the seizing, laying hold of, a particular with the memory. 
Correspondingly, in the case of forgetting a thing, Heb. xii. 5 ἐκλέ- 
λησθε τῆς παρακλήσεως, Vi. 10 ἐπιλαθέσθαι τοῦ ἔργου ὑμῶν, xiii. 2, 
10. But ἀναμιμνήσκεσθαι Heb. x. 32; 2 Cor. vii. 15; Mark xiv. 72 
and μνημονεύειν Matt. xvi. 9; 1 Thess. ii. 9; Rev. xviii. 5 often 
govern the Accusative (Mtth. 820), yet rather in the sense of having 
present in the mind, holding in remembrance (Bhdy. 177); ἐπιλαν- 
θάνεσθαι likewise is joined to this case in Phil. iii. 14, so sometimes 
in the Sept. (Deut. iv. 9; 2 Kings xvii. 38; Isa. Ixv. 16; Wisd. 
ii.4; Ecclus. iii. 14), and even in Attic (Mtth. 821). This double 
construction rests on a different view of the relation, of which 
there is a glimpse also in Latin. Verbs of mentioning do not 
take the Genitive in the N. T.; but we find, instead, μνημον. περί 
Heb. xi. 22 (cf. μιμνήσκεσθαι περί Xen. C. 1,6, 12; Plut. paedag. 
9, 27; Tob. iv. 1). 
_ ἃ, Further, the transition is easy to verbs of caring for or neg- 
lecting (Mtth. 821), Luke x. 84 ἐπεμελήθη αὐτοῦ (1 Tim. iii. 5), 
1 Cor. ix. 9 μὴ τῶν βοῶν μέλει τῷ θεῷ ; (Acts xviii. 17; Plut. 
paedag. 17, 22), Tit. iii. 8 Ha φροντίζωσι καλῶν ἔργων, 1 Tim. v. 8 
τῶν ἰδίων οὐ προνοεῖ, 1 Tim. iv. 14 μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος 
(Heb, ii. 8), Heb. xii. 5 μὴ ὀλυγώρει παιδείας κυρίου. Under this 
head comes also φείδεσθαι (Mtth. 822),? Acts xx. 29 μὴ φειδόμενοι 185 
τοῦ ποιμνίου not sparing the flock, 1 Cor. vii. 28; 2 Pet. ii. 4. etc. Set 


1 In the Sept. this verb is found with the Dat. Ex. xvii. 3 ἐδίψησεν 6 Aads ὕδατι ( for 
water). Likewise in Ps. lxii. 2 the Cod. Vat. has ἐδίψησέ σοι (θεῷ, al. ce) ἡ ψυχή pov. 

? In Latin parcerealicui. But in the Greek φείδεσθαι, judging from the construction, 
lies rather the notion of restraining one’s self from, sibi temperare etc. In the Sept., 
however, this verb also takes the Dative, and is construed with prepositions. 


206 § 30. GENITIVE. 


219 On the other hand, we find μέλει also with περί in Matt. xxii. 16; 
Juno. χ. 18 ; xii. 6, etc. (Her. 6,101; Xen. Ο. 4,5,17; Hiero, 9, 10, 
etc.; Wisd. xii. 13; 1 Mace. xiv. 48, ef. Strange in Jahn’s Archiv 
II. 400). 

e. Lastly, verbs of ruling (Mtth. 838) take the Genitive as the 
simple case of dependence (for to this the notion of preceding also 
reduces itself, Hartung,S.14): Mark x. 42 of δοκυῦντες ἄρχειν τῶν 
ἐθνῶν κατακυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν (Rom. xv. 12 LXX.), cf. also κυριεύειν 
Rom. xiv. 9; 2 Cor. i. 24, αὐθεντεῖν 1 Tim. ii. 12, καταδυναστεύειν 
Jas. ii. 6, ἀνθυπατεύειν Acts xviii. 12 ete. —verbs all derived from 
nouns, and whose construction is to be resolved thus: κύριόν τινος 
εἶναι, ἀνθύπατόν τινος εἶναι. On the other hand, βασιλεύειν τινός 

194 (Her. 1, 206 and Sept.) never oceurs in the N.T.; but we find 

Τὰ οὐ, instead, conformably to the Heb. idiom (sx with verbs of ruling, 
Ps. xlvii. 9; Prov. xxviii. 15; Neh. v.15) Bac. ἐπί twos Matt. 
ii, 22; Rev. v. 10, or ἐπί τινα Luke i. 33; xix. 14,27; Rom. v.14; 
ef. Lob. Phryn. 475. 


Verbs of buying and selling take the Genitive of the price (Bhdy. 177 f. 
Mav. 67 ἢ) ; as, Matt. x. 29 οὐχὶ δύο στρουθία ἀσσαρίου πωλεῖται --- xxvi. 9 
ἠδύνατο τοῦτο πραθῆναι πολλοῦ, xx. 13; Mark xiv. 5; Acts ν. 8 (Plato 
apol. 20 b.) 1 Cor. vi. 20; cf. Rev. vi. 6 — Bar. i. 10; iii. 30 (but Matt. 
XXvil. 7 ἠγόρασαν ἐξ αὐτῶν viz. ἀργυρίων, Acts i. 18), Acts vii. 16 ὠνήσατο 
τιμῆς ἀργυρίου (with ἐκ Palaeph. 46, 8, 4). Also under this head comes 
Jude 11 τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ ἐξεχύθησαν for reward (Xen. C. 3, 
2,7; Plat. rep. 9,575 b.). Agreeably to the construction with ἐκ, and 
still more in view of the fundamental import of the Genitive, this genitivus 
pretii might be reduced to the notion of proceeding from (cf. Eng. proceeds), 
as that which is bought for a price comes to us, as it were, out of the price 
given. But it is probably more correct to refer this construction to the 
Genitive of exchanging, and to compare such phraseology as ἀλλάσσειν τί 
twos (Hartung, 15; Mtth. 483); for one buys or sells in exchange for so 
much money. Hence in Greek ἀντί [cf. Heb. xii. 2, 16] is the preposition 
of price. (A different view will be found in Hm. Opuse. I. 179; see on the 
other hand Priifer de graeca et lat. declinat. 98 sq.) However, the con- 
struction ἀλλάσσειν, διαλλάσσειν τί τινος does not itself occur in the Greek 
Bible, but in Rom. i. 23 we find the more explicit ἀλλάσσειν τι ἔν τινι, a8 
in the Sept. (after the Heb. 2 2m) Ps. ev. 20. ᾿Αλλάσσειν τί τινι comes 
nearest to this (Her. 7,152; Sept. Exod. xiii. 13; Lev. xxvii. 10, and 
frequently). Moreover, words of valuing, estimating, etc. stand on the 
same footing with verbs of buying, etc., and govern in like manner the 
Genitive (Krii. 44) ; cf. ἄξιος Matt. iii. 8; x.10; Rom.i. 32, ἀξιοῦν 2 Thess. 
i. 11; 1 Tim. v.17; Heb. iii. 3, ete. . 


§ 80. GENITIVE. 207 


11. The Genitive of place and of time is employed without being 186 
directly governed by a single word, yet in accordance with the "+ 
primary import of the case (Hm. Vig. 881; Hartung, 32 ff.) and 220 
in obvious connection with the structure of the sentence; as, Aesch. 
Prom. 714 λαιᾶς χειρὸς σιδηροτέκτονες οἰκοῦσι Χάλυβες on the left 
hand (Her. 5, 77), Xen. Eph. 5,13 ἐκείνης τῆς ἡμέρας that day, 
Philostr. her. 9, 3 f. χειμῶνος in winter, ‘of a winter,’ Thuc. 3, 104 
(Mtth. 857 f.). The N. T. writers, in this case, almost invariably 
employ a preposition. Only in certain standing phrases do they 
use the Genitive alone (which is strictly a partitive Genitive) ; as, 
often νυκτός by night, also μέσης νυκτός Matt. xxv. 6, ἡμέρας καὶ 
νυκτός Luke xviii. 7; Acts ix. 24 (Xen. A. 2, 6,7), χειμῶνος Matt. 
xxiv. 20 (joined with σαββάτῳ, Luke xxiv. 1 ὄρθρου βαθέος, v. 19 
μὴ εὑρόντες, ποίας (ὁδοῦ) εἰςενέγκωσιν αὐτόν (by) what way, xix. 

4 (ἐκείνης sc. 6800), Gal. vi. 17 τοῦ λοιποῦ (Thue. 4. 98) cf. the 
German des weitern. (But for the very reason that the Genitive 195 
of time is confined in the N. T. to simple and current phrases, ith ed 
Acts i. 3 ἡμερῶν τεσσαράκοντα in D must not be translated within 
forty days (Mtth. 858), see above 2,a. Had such been Luke’s 
meaning, he would undoubtedly have employed a preposition.) 


Rey. xvi. 7 ἤκουσα τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου λέγοντος is certainly not to be 
referred to this head (7 heard speaking from the altar, cf. Soph. El. 78 ; 
Erfurdt, Soph. Oed. R. 142; Bttm. Philoct. 115; Bhdy. 137); but, in 
accordance with the analogous expressions in verse 5 and vi. 3, 5, it must 
be translated / heard the altar speaking ; see Bengel in loc. This pros- 
Opopoeia may be attributed to the strangely mysterious character of these 
visions, see de Wette. The reading jx. ἄλλου ἐκ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου λέγ. 
is a manifest correction. On Τιβεριάδος Jno. vi. 1 see above, p. 191. 

Note. Genitives absolute, which often occur in the historical style even 
in the N. T., are not in their original application properly absolute, but 
come under the Genitive as the case defining time, cf. Hartung, S. 31 
(hence they correspond to Ablatives absolute in Latin). Subsequently, 
however, they are used in a more extended reference, especially to 
specify the cause and condition (also involved in the Genitive). We 
have merely to remark here, that they sometimes occur where the nature 
of the verb following would lead one to expect a different oblique case: 
Luke xvii. 12 cisepxopévov αὐτοῦ... ἀπήντησαν αὐτῷ, xxii. 10, 53; xviii. 
40 ἐγγίσαντος αὐτοῦ ἐπερώτησεν αὐτόν, Mark xi. 27; Acts iv. 1; xxi. 17; 
2 Cor. xii. 21; Jno. iv. 51. This is usual likewise in Greek authors, 
partly because at the beginning of the sentence the writer had not yet 
decided on the principal verb, and partly because the regular construction 
would often render the expression clumsy, cf. Her. 1, 41; Thuc. 1, 114; 


208 881. DATIVE. 


221 3,13; Xen. A. 2, 4,24; Mem. 4, 8,5; Pol. 4, 49,1; Ken. Eph. 4,5; 
Heliod. 2, 50, 113; Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. 11. 21; Schaef. Apollon. Rh. 
Il. 171 and Dem. II. 202; Poppo, Thue. I. 2, 119 ; Siebelis, Pausan. II. 8; 
Hoffmann, Pr. de casib. absol. p. 1.1 Likewise 2 Cor. iv. 18 αἰώνιον βάρος 

187 δόξης κατεργάζεται ἡμῖν, μὴ σκοπούντων ἡμῶν τὰ βλεπόμενα might have 

ith el. been expressed thus: μὴ σκοποῦσι τὰ BAe. By the former construction, 
however, the participial clause is brought out with more prominence and 
force. Cf. Xen. C. 6,1, 87, Finally, Genitives absolute are exceptionally 
used when the subject of the principal clause (in the Nominative) is the 
same as that of the secondary clause ; as, Matt. i. 18 μνηστευθείσης τῆς μητρὸς 
αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ, πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτούς, εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα, 
where the writer probably had contemplated another termination of the 
sentence. So perhaps Rey. xvii. 8. In Greek authors swch instances are 
rare; yet see Her. 5, 81; Plat. rep. 8, 547 b.; Pol. 31, 17, 1, ef. Poppo, 
Thue. I. 119 sq.; Wannowski, p. 61 sqq. In the Sept. notice Gen. xliv. 4; 

196 Exod. iv. 21; v. 20; xiv. 18; cf. Acta apocr. p. 68, 69; Epiphan. vit. 

ith ed. p, 326, 340, 346 (in the 2d vol. of the Works of Epiphan. ed: Colon.) ; in 
Latin, Suet. Tib. 31. In all these instances Genitives absolute appear as 
fixed forms of expression, their grammatical origin being no longer taken 
into consideration. 


§ 31. DATIVE. 


InGreek the Dative is the more comprehensive in its import, 
because it represents the Ablative also, which in Latin is a sep- 
arate case (cf. Hm. emend. rat. p. 140). Its relation to a sentence 
is not (in general) close and essential, like that of the Acc. or even 
the Gen.; but it serves merely to complete and extend, inasmuch 
as it points out the object (mostly a person) towards which an 
action tends, to which it has reference, yet on which it does not 
directly terminate. Hence the Dative frequently accompanies an 
Acc. of the object; as, 2 Cor. ix. 2 προθυμία ἣν καυχῶμαι Μακεδόσιν, 
Acts xxii. 25 προέτειναν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἱμάσιν (Kuin. in loc.), xxiv. 5; 
Jno. vi.13. In a looser application (to things) the Dative denotes 
what in any way accompanies the action, as motive, power, cir- 
cumstance (of time and place), ete. 

922 1. We shall first consider the Dative as the case of reference 
(of the more remote object, as it is commonly called) when joined 
to transitive verbs —as, διδόναι (δωρεῖσθαί) τέ τινι, γράφειν τί τινι 
(2 Cor. ii. 8), εὐαγγελίζεσθαί τινί τι (Luke ii. 10; 2 Cor. xi. 7), 


1 From the Latin compare Ablat. absol. in Cic. Phil. 11, 10; fam. 15; 4, 18; Caes. b. 
gall. 5,4; civ. 1,36; 2,19; 3, 21. 








ee A ὦ κι 
- Fe ne ee ny a ΨΌΝ 


81. DATIVE. 209 


ὀφείλειν τινί τι Matt. xviii. 28; Rom. xiii. 8 (cf. Rom. i. 14; viii. 
12, contrary xv. 27), ὁμοιοῦν τινά τινι Matt. vii. 24; xi. 16, καταλ- 
λάσσειν τινά τινι 2 Cor. v.18, ἐγείρειν θλῖψιν τοῖς δεσμοῖς Phil. 
i. 17, all which present no difficulty, —and especially to intransitive 
verbs and their cognate adjectives. 

Its force is more or less distinct, - 

a. In ἀκολουθεῖν, ἐγγίζειν, κολλᾶσθαί, στοιχεῖν (Rom. iv. 12 ete.), 
δεδέσθαι (Rom. vii. 2; 1 Cor. vii. 27), ἐντυγχάνειν τινί etc., also 
εὔχεσθαί τινε Acts xxvi. 29. 

b. In μεριμνᾶν Matt. vi. 25, ὀργίζεσθαι v. 22, μετριοπαθεῖν τινι 
Heb. v. 2, in μέμφεσθαι Heb. viii. 8 (Krii. 21), φθονεῖν Gal. v. 26. 

6. In πιστεύειν, πεποιθέναι, ἀπιστεῖν, ἀπειθεῖν, ὑπακούειν, ὑπήκοος, 
ἐναντίος, etc. 

ἃ. In προςκυνεῖν, λατρεύειν (not Phil. iii. 3), δουλοῦν. 

e. In ἀρέσκειν, ἀρκεῖν Matt. xxv.9; 2 Cor. xii. 9, dpxeros and 
ἱκανός Matt. vi. 34; 1 Pet. iv. 3; 2 Cor. ii. 6. 

f. Further, in ξενίζεσθαί τινι 1 Pet. iv. 12 (Thue. 4, 85) be sur- 188 
prised at a thing (the surprise being in reference to the thing), δ 
ἀπολογεῖσθαί (2 Cor. xii. 19; Acts xix. 33 ef. 1 Pet. iii. 15) and 
διαλέγεσθαί τινι (Acts xvii. 2; xviii. 19), διακατελέγχεσθαί τινι 
Acts xviii. 28 (δογματίζειν τινί ef. Col. ii. 20), where the person to 
whom the conversation, defence, etc. is addressed, is indicated by 
the Dative. Also ὁμολογεῖν and ἐξομολογεῖσθαί τινι (Jas. v. 16), 
even in the sense of praise (Ὁ main) Luke x. 21; Rom. xiv. 11; 197 
Heb, xiii. 15, since every act of praise to God is a confession made ne 
to him, that we recognize him as the High and Mighty One. So 
in one instance also αἰνεῖν τινε Rev. xix. 5 according to the best 
Codd. [Sin. too], cf. Ecclus. li. 12; im this case, too, > min was 
probably in mind,—unless the construction is ad sensum like εἰπεῖν 
αἴνεσιν. 

g. In κρίνεσθαί Matt. ν. 40, διακρίνεσθαίΐ τινι Jude 9 (Jer. xv.10) 
to go to law, to contend with one. 

h. In verbs of likeness or similarity —under another point of 
view — Matt. xxiii. 27 ὁμοιάζετε τάφοις κεκονιαμένοις, vi. 8; Heb. 

ii. 17; 2 Cor. x. 12 cf. ὅμοιός, ἴσος τινί Matt. xi. 16; Jno. ix. 9; 
1 Jno. iii. 2; Acts xiv. 15; Matt. xx.12; Phil. ii. 6; cf. Fr. Arist. 
amic. p. 15 (ὅμοιος also once with the Genitive, Jno. viii. 55; Mtth. 
873; cf. § 80, 4), and verbs of participating in; as, 1 Tim. v. 22; 
1 Pet. iv. 13 ef. Luke v. 10; Rom. xv. 27 (these verbs have more 
frequently the Gen. § 30, 8). Likewise ὁμιλεῖν τινε Acts xxiv. 26. 


i. In verbs of using, as χρῆσθαι Acts xxvii.17; 1 Cor. ix. 12, 15; 223 
27 


210 § 81, DATIVE. 


(on the contrary, once 1 Cor. vii. 31 with the Acc. in the best Codd. 
[also Sin."], as sometimes in later writers e.g. Malal. p.5; Theophan. 
p. 814; Bockh, corp. inscript. Il. 405—not Xen. Ages. 11, 11— 
cf. Bornem. Act. p. 222. But in Acts xxvii. 17 the Acc. has little 
authority). 

k. In στήκειν (ἑστηκέναι) tivi, to stand fast for a thing 2 Cor. 
i. 24; Gal. v. 1 (var.), or a person Rom. xiv. 4. 


Προςκυνεῖν (reverence and worship) invariably governs the Dative in 
Matt. Mark and Paul (Matt. iv. 10 is a quotation from Deut. vi. 18) ; 
while in the other N. T. writers it has sometimes the Dat. (Jno. ix. 88 ; 
{Acts vii. 43; Heb. i. 6; Rey. iv. 10; vii. 11; xiii, 4, etc.), sometimes the 
Acc. (Luke iv. 8; xxiv.52; Jno.iv. 23; Rev. ix. 20; xiv. 11) ; similarly 
γονυπετεῖν τινα Mark (i. 40) χ. 17 ; Matt. xvii. 14 (and λατρεύειν τινά some- 
times, Mtth. 886). The Dative after προςκυνεῖν is peculiar to later Greek 
alone; Lob. Phryn. p. 463; cf. Bos, ex. phil. p. 1 sqq. ; Kypke, obs. I. 7 sq. 
Χαίρειν, which in Greek authors is often construed with the Dative (Fr. 
Rom. III. 78 f.), and sometimes also in the Sept. (Prov. xvii. 19, cf. Bar. 
iv. 37), is never so used in the N. T. (on Rom. xii. 12 see below, No. 7; 
in 1 Cor. xiii. 6 the Dat. depends on σύν) but for the most part with ἐπί over. 
The phrases ἀποθανεῖν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, τῷ νόμῳ Rom. vi. 2; Gal. ii. 19, 
θανατοῦσθαι τῷ νόμῳ Rom. vii. 4, νεκρὸν εἶναι τῇ dy. vi. 11, in antithesis to 
ζὴν τινι (τῷ θεῷ Rom. vi. 10 cf. 1 Pet. iv. 10) signify: to be dead to (for) 
sin, the law ete. cf. Rom. vii. 4 εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ and ἀπογενέσθαι 
τῇ dpapt. 1 Pet. ii. 24. In the same way, in Rom. vi. 20 ἐλεύθεροι τῇ 
δικαιοσύνῃ is contrasted with δουλοῦσθαι τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ (verse 18 cf. 19,20) : 
when ye were slaves to sin, ye were free to (relatively to) righteousness, — 

so far as righteousness is concerned, freemen. 
189 In xaraxpivew τινὰ θανάτῳ Matt. xx. 18 (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 6), an expression 
6th el. unknown to classic Greek, we find a Dative of the thing after a verb of 
198 sentencing: to condemn one to death, i.e. by sentence adjudge to death. 
Τὰ οὐ, The classical Greek construction is κατακρίνειν τινὰ θανάτου or θάνατον 
(Mtth. 850; Heupel, Mr. 285), or κατακρ. τινὶ θάνατον Her. 0, 85 (to award 
death). Analogous is καταδικάζειν τινὰ θανάτῳ, Lob. Phryn. p. 475; cf. 
also ἔνοχος τῇ κρίσει Matt. v. 21 f. amenable to the court (ὃ 30,8). Cf. 


Bleek, Heb. II. I. 340. 


2. Closely connected with this is the Dative dependent on εἶναι 
(ὑπάρχειν) and γίνεσθαι (not on the predicates joined to them) ; 
224 for ἐστί or γίνεταί μοι φόβος can only mean: the φόβον εἶναι or 
γίνεσθαι applies, refers, to me. From it result the following uses: 


1 This construction is unknown also in the O.T. Of the parallel passages quoted 
by Bretsch. one, Sus. 41, is κατέκριναν αὐτὴν ἀποθανεῖν, and the other, vs. 48, is absol. 


κατεκρίνατε θυγατέρα Ἰσραήλ. 


881. DATIVE. 211 


a. Without a predicate, εἶναί τινε expresses property (possession ), 
γίνεσθαί τινι impartation: Luke ii. 7 οὐκ ἣν αὐτοῖς τόπος they had 
no room, Acts viii. 21; x.6; iii.6; xxi. 23; Matt. xviii.12; Luke 
i. 14 ἔσται χαρά σοι, Matt. xvi. 22 οὐ μὴ ἔσται σοι τοῦτο this will 
not befall thee, Acts xx. 3,16; ii. 48 ἐγένετο, πάσῃ ψυχῇ φόβος 
fear fell upon, Rom. xi. 25. Elliptically 1 Cor. vi.13; v.12; 2 Cor. 
vi. 14; Jno. ii. 4 (Krii. 59). 

b. With a predicate (mostly a substantive), εἶναι or γίνεσθαί 
τινι denotes what quality for a person a thing has or receives, 
objectively as well as subjectively (i.e. in his own opinion) ; as, 
1 Cor. viii. 9 μήπως ἡ ἐξουσία ... πρόςκομμα γένηται τοῖς ἀσθενέσιν, 
i. 18 ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῖς μὲν ἀπολλυμένοις μωρία ἐστίν etc. 
ix. 2; xiv. 22; Rom. ii. 14; vii. 13; 1 Cor. iv. 3; ix. 3; Phil. 
i. 28. But become (redound) éo (Krii. 59) is usually expressed in 
the N. T. by εἶναι or γίνεσθαι εἴς τι. 

3. Substantives derived from verbs governing a Dative some- 
times take the same case, instead of the ordinary Genitive ; as, 
2 Cor. ix. 12 εὐχαριστίαι τῷ θεῷ (not 11), somewhat like εὐχαὶ τοῖς 
θεοῖς Plat. lege. 7, 800 a., see Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. 1. 154 Lips. ; 
Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. 101, and rep. 1. 872; Ast, Plat. Polit. 451; 
Bornem. Xen. Cyr. 374; Fr. Mr. p.63. Compare besides τὸ εἰωθὸς 
αὐτῷ Luke iv. 16; Acts xvii. 2 (Plat. legg. 658 6. τὸ ἦθος ἡμῖν) 
and τὸ εὐπάρεδρον τῷ κυρίῳ 1 Cor. vii. 35. The case is different 
in Luke vii. 12 υἱὸς μονογενὴς τῇ μητρί a son who was to his mother 
an only son (thus not strictly for the Genitive, cf. Tob. iii. 15 
μονογενὴς τῷ πατρί, Judg. xi. 34), with which the Dative of rela- 
tionship — cf. Luke v. 10; Rom. iv. 12 (Bttm. Philoct. p. 102 sq. ; 
Boisson. Nic. p. 271; Ast, Plat. Polit. 451, 519, also lege. p. 9) — 
is not to be confounded. On Rom. iv.12 see § 61, 5, p. 555. 


Also in Matt. xxvii. 7 ἠγόρασαν τὸν ἀγρὸν ... εἰς ταφὴν tots ἕένοις 
for a burying-ground for strangers, the Dative belongs to the substantive ; 
ef. Strabo 17, 807 πρὸς ἐπίδειξιν τοῖς Eévors. See Schoem. Isae. p- 264; 199 
Kri. 68 f. But in 1 Cor. vii. 28 the Dative may be referred to the verb 100 


of the sentence. Yet see Bhdy. S. 88. bth od. 


4. The Dative, without being directly involved in the significa- 
tion of a verb or noun, expresses the relation of the action to some 
one: 2 Cor. ii. 12 οὐκ ἔσχηκα ἄνεσιν τῷ πνεύματί μου for my spirit 
(1 Cor. vii. 28), or Luke xviii. 31 πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα ... TA vid 225 
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου which were written for him (that they might receive 
fulfilment in him), (Matt. xiii. 14; Jude 14). Cf. besides, Matt. 
xiii, 02; Phil. 1, 27; 1 Tim. i. 9; Rev. xxi.2. Especially deserv- 
ing of notice are, 





212 § 31. DATIVE. 


a. The Dative of opinion or decision (ef. above, No. 2); as, 
Plato, Phaed. 101 ἃ. εἴ cou ἀλλήλοις ξυμφωνεῖ ἢ διαφωνεῖ ; Soph. 
Oed. C. 1446. Soin the expressions Acts vil. 20 ἀστεῖος τῷ θεῷ, 
2 Cor. x. 4 δυνατὰ τῷ θεῷ. See also 1 Cor. ix. 2. Cf. Wyttenb. 
Plat. Phaed. as above; Erfurdt, Soph. Oed. R. 615; Krii. 61. 

b. The Dative of interest, 2 Cor. v. 13 εἴτε ἐξέστημεν, θεῷ" εἴτε 
σωφρονοῦμεν, ὑμῖν (Rom.xiv.6; 1Cor. xiv. 22), or, more definitely, 
the dativus commodi and incommodi, Jno. iii. 26 ᾧ σὺ μεμαρτύρηκας, 
to whom, in favor of whom (Luke iv. 22; Rom. x. 2; 2 Cor. ii. 1; 
cf. Xen. M. 1, 2,21). On the other hand, Matt. xxiii. 31 μαρτυ- 
peite ἑαυτοῖς ὅτι viol ἐστε etc., against yourselves, οἵ, Jas. v. 8. 
Cf. besides, Heb. vi.6; Jude 1; Rom. xiii. 2. On Rev. viii. 3, see 
Ewald. (But Eph. v. 19 λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς ---- ἀλλήλοις ----ψαλμοῖς, 
etc., is a simple Dative of direction: speaking to one another, etc.) 

5. The preceding illustrations suffice to show that the Dative is 
as closely related to the prepositions εἰς (Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. 
p- 860)? and πρός (οἷ. Ast, Plat. lege. p. 558), as the Gen. is to 
the prepositions ἐκ and ἀπο. Hence in many phrases one of the 
former prepositions is used instead of the Dative. Thus we find, 
as every one knows, not only λέγειν τινί and πρός τινα (the latter is 
in Matt. and Mark the usual indeed almost invariable expression, 
see Schulz, Parab. v. Verwalt. 8. 38) — cf. κράζειν τινί Rev. vii. 2 ; 
xiv. 15, φωνεῖν τινι Rev. xiv. 18,— but also εὔχεσθαι θεῷ Acts 
xxvi. 29 (Xen. Cyr. 5, 2,12; Demosth. Conon. 729 ο. ; Plut. Coriol. 
9; Xen. Eph. 4,3), and εὔχεσθαι πρὸς θεόν 2 Cor. xiii. T (Xen. 
M. 1, 3, 2) ef. Phil. iv. 6, βοᾶν tu Luke xviii. T and 8. πρός τινα Hos. 
vii. 14, ψεύδεσθαί τινι (Acts v. 4; Ps. xvii. 45; Ixxvii. 86; Jer. 
vy. 12, but not in Greek authors) and ψεύδ. πρός τινα (to lie against 
one, to be false towards one) Xen. A. 1, 38,5, καταλλάττειν τινί and 

200 πρός τινα Xen. vectig.6, 8; Joseph. antt. 14, 11, 8, εὐδοκεῖν εἴς twa 
Ithed. 9 Pet. i. 17 and red in Greek writers (Pol. 4, 22,7; 1 Mace. i. 438), 
226 μάχεσθαί τινι Xen. A. 4, 5, 12; Plato, rep. 3,407 a. and πρός τινα 
Jno. vi. 52; Tliad. 17, 98; Plato, Lach. 191 d.; Lucian. conv. 42, 
and often (also in Sept.),! ὁμιλεῖν τινι and πρός τινα Luke xxiv. 14; 


1 ποὺς πτωχοὺς τῷ κόσμῳ, as Lchm. and ΤᾺ, read Jas. ii. 5, would be similar. 

2 In modern Greek the Acc. with εἰς serves very commonly as a circumlocution for 
the Dative, even in its simplest relations ; as, λέγω εἰς τὸν φίλον μου dico amico meo, 
(German, gegen m. Fr.), see v. Liidemann, Lehrb, 90. 

8 Col. i. 20 ἀποκαταλλ. εἰς would be analogous, if this were not designedly a pregnant 
construction ; see Mey. 

4 So besides παραβάλλειν τί τινι (Her. 4.198) also τι πρός τι occurs (Joseph. Ap. 2. 15). 
Otherwise Mark ἵν. 80 ἐν ποίᾳ παραβολῇ παραβάλωμεν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, see Fra 
but the reading here varies. 





581. DATIVE. 213 


Xen. M. 4, 8, 2. The construction with a preposition doubtless 
attracted the N. T. writers, through the influence of the explicit 
and graphic idiom of their vernacular tongue, and hence where 
the Dat. commodi or incommodi would have been sufficient for 
native Greek authors, we find eis: Acts xxiv. 17 ἐλεημοσύνας ποιή- 
cov eis τὸ ἔθνος pov, Luke vii. 80 τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἠθέτησαν 
εἰς ἑαυτούς to their own harm (so that εἰς also signifies contra). 
On the other hand κηρύττειν or εὐαγγελίζεσθαι eis, being constantly 
followed by the Plural of the noun, denotes to make known among, 
Mark xiii. 10; 1 Pet. i. 25; Luke xxiv. 47 (Paus. 8,5,8). In 
‘Matt. xx. 1 μισθοῦσθαι εἰς τὸν ἀμπελῶνα means hire, not for, 
but inéo his vineyard. In .the same way, the construction is preg- 
nant in Mark viii. 19 τοὺς ἄρτους ἔκλασα εἰς τοὺς πεντακιςχιλ. broke 
(and divided) among the ete. Likewise in Matt. v. 22 ἔνοχος εἰς 
τὴν γέενναν liable into Gehenna, i.e. to go, be cast (on the other 
hand τῇ κρίσει, τῷ συνεδρίῳ). Also Rom. viii. 18 τὴν μέλλουσαν 
δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς ἡμᾶς is an abridged expression (see Fr.) 
similar to the Hebrew τὸν πρὸ 1 Sam. iii. 7, Lastly, in the phrases 
ὠφέλιμος πρὸς τι 1 Tim. iv. 8; 2 Tim. iii. 16 (with εἰς Xen. Oec. 5, 
11 ef. χρήσιμος εἰς Wisd. xiii. 11), εὔθετος εἴς τι Luke xiv. 35 (Dion. 
H. de Thue. 55, 3, with πρός Pol. 26,5,6; Ὁ. 8.5, 37) the preposi- 
tion with the Acc. must not be regarded as put for the Dative, since 
useful, adapted, for, to something is quite an appropriate expression, 
while the Dative would be more suitable in reference to the Person. 
Yet cf. Luke ix. 62 var. 


The phrase πιστεύειν εἴς or ἐπί twa (Acts ix. 42; xxii. 19) obviously 
means in Christian phraseology more than πιστεύειν τινί (credere, confidere 
alicui), and is to be taken as pregnant: in faith to resign one’s self unto 
any one, to profess one’s self a believer on one, fide se ad aliquem applicare.? 
Likewise παραδιδόναι εἰς (to deliver up to any one) is not simply equivalent 
to παρ. τινί, but rather denotes deliver into the power of, surrender to, Matt. 
x. 17; hence it is used with θάνατος Matt. x. 21; 2 Cor. iv. 11, θλῖψις Matt. 
xxiv. 9, ἀκαθαρσία Rom. i. 24 etc.; ef. Xen. Hel. 1, 7,8. The construction 
ἑαυτοὺς παρέδωκαν τῇ ἀσελγείᾳ εἰς ἐργασίαν ἀκαθαρσίας πάσης etc. Eph. iv. 19 
requires no explanation. 


1 In Luke viii. 43 the text. ree. has εἰς Ἰατροὺς προταναλώσασα ὅλον τὸν βίον, but the 
best Codd. | Sin. too] have iatpots. The latter must be preferred, as the former appears 
to be acorrection. In Greek authors, that is to say, the verb is usually construed with 
eis, Xen. Cyrop. 2, 4,9; Aelian. 14, 32. 

2 Thorevew ἐν Χριστῷ is to be understood in the same way, yet this expression cannot 
be unquestionably established from Gal. iii. 26; Eph. i. 13; we find, however, in Mark 
1.15 mor. ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, which is not essentially different. Further, ἡ πρός twa 
πίστις, and the like (Schwarz, Comment. p. 1102), do not prove the expression πιστεύειν 
πρός or els τινα to be pure Greek. 


191 
Gth ed. 


227 
201 
7th ed, 


214 881. DATIVE. 


Note. The Dat. is related also to μετά. Accordingly, in the N. T. we 
find πολεμεῖν pera τινος Rey. xii.7 ; xiii. 4 for πολεμεῖν τινι, also κρίνεσθαι μετά 
~~ gwos 1 Cor. vi. 6 (7). In other relations a circumlocution for the Dat. is 
192 formed, a. By means of ἐνώπιον Acts vi. 5 ἤρεσεν ἐνώπιον παντὸς τοῦ πλήθους 
θμ εἰ, (Gen. xxxiv. 18; xli. 37; 2 Sam. iii. 36, etc.) cf. 1 Jno. ii. 22, προςκυνεῖν 
ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ (Luke iv. 7; Rev. xv. 4). This, and almost the prep- 
Osition ἐνώπιον itself (9:55), is Hebraistic. Ὁ. After πέποιθα by ἐν Phil. 
iii. 3, or ἐπί with Dat. Mark x. 24; 2 Cor. i. 9 and with Acc. Matt. 
xxvii. 43 (1 Mace. x. 77), [or lastly by εἰς, yet only in Gal. v. 10]. 

c. After ἀκολουθεῖν by ὀπίσω Matt. x. 88 ; see ὃ 33. 


That the Dative can be employed precisely for the local πρός or 

eis with the Acc. has been denied by Bornem. (in Rosenm. Reper- 

tor. II. 253 and in the neu. krit. Journ. ἃ. theol. Literat. VI. 146 f., 

cf. also ad Anab. p. 23), and also by Mey. on Acts ii. 33. It is 
true, the examples adduced from Greek poets by Fr. (Conject. I. 
42) do not establish the rule (for prose), and the N. T. passages 
may be explained differently: in Acts ii. 33 and v. 81 ὑψοῦν τῇ 
δεξιᾷ may signify by (his) right hand; in Rey. ii. 16 co is simply 

a Dat. incommodi; even Acts xxi. 16 might be rendered (after 
Beza and Glass.) adducentes secum, apud quem hospitaremur Mna- 
sonem, so that Mvacww dependent on ἄγοντες as Acc. of the object 
(Μνάσωνα x.t.r.) would be incorporated into the relative clause. 
But the latter rendering has little probability! Sooner could we, 
according to Bornem.’s more recent suggestion (Luke p. 177 sq.), 
resolve the attraction in the above passage thus: ἄγοντες (ἡμᾶς) 
228 παρὰ Μνάσωνά twa... παρ᾽ ᾧ ξενισθῶμεν (as to ἄγειν παρά τινα 
ef. Her. 1, 86; 8, 15); even this, however, is not the easiest way. 
The construction ἄγειν τινί bring to one may indeed be unusual 
(yet see the Note) in Attic prose, but in later prose authors we 
find expressions entirely similar, as φοιτᾶν τινι Philostr. Soph. 2, 

1, 14 (Wyttenbach, Plutarch. Mor. IV. 339), ἥκειν τινὶ Plutarch. 
202 Aem. 16, 1, eishépew τινά τινι Malal. 10, p. 231. On Acts xxi. 16 
ith el. especially, however, cf. Xen. Eph. ὃ, 6, p. 63 πότερον ἠγόμην ’ABpo- 


1 Not precisely on account of the annexed predicate apx. μαθητῇ ( Bengel’s n. Archiv 
III. 175), as that refers to Mnason to show that Paul could trust him perfectly ; but 
rather because it is not credible that his companions would haye brought a host for 
Paul with them from Caesarea, as there were in Jerusalem so many trustworthy Chris- 
tians. According to this view one would have to assume that this Mnason was either 
accidentally present in Caesarea, or that he had a residence in two places at the same 
time. By dropping secum, which is not implied in ἄγοντες, the statement would become 
simpler: they brought ( introduced) Mnason in Jerusalem after their arrival ; but then 
the position of the words would not be suitable. 


881. DATIVE. 215 


koun, and Epiph. vit. p. 340 ἃ. ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν ᾿Αθανασίῳ τῷ Tarra. 
See also Bhdy. 95; Held, Plut. Aem. P. p. 200. Hence ὑψοῦν τῇ 
δεξιᾷ may without hesitation be translated: raise Τὸ the right hand; 
ef. vs. 84 (of Acts ii.) κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ; cf. Lucian. asin. 39. 


In Luke ii. 41 éopetiovro ... εἰς Ἵερ. τῇ ἑορτῇ is not to the festival 193 
(Luth. auf das Osterfest), but either on account of the f. (see below, 6 c.), Sth el 
or, as a loose expression, at the f. (as we also say: they made a yearly 
journey at Laster to ... to attend divine service). There would be more 
reason for referring to the preceding rule Mark xiv. 53 συνέρχονται αὐτῷ 
convenerant eum, and Jno. xi. 33 τοὺς συνελθόντας αὐτῇ ᾿Ιουδαίους (Fr. Mr. 
648). Still, as appears to me, in both these passages the Dative is really 
governed by σύν : the second signifying simply, who had come with her ; 
and the first, they came with him, that is, with Jesus (verse 54), see BCrus. 

Further, different from the foregoing construction is that of the Dative 
joined to verbs of coming in an ideal sense; as, Acts xxi. 31 ἀνέβη φάσις 
τῷ χιλιάρχῳ compare our tidings came to him. A similar usage occurs 
frequently and indisputably in Greek authors ; as, Plutarch. Brut. 27 μέλ- 
λοντι αὐτῷ διαβαίνειν... ἧκεν ἀγγελία περὶ τῆς μεταβολῆς, and Pomp. 18 τῷ 
Σύλλᾳ πρώτη μὲν ἦλθεν ἀγγελία. Cf. ἀνάγειν τί τινι to bring a thing before 
one (notify to), Malal. 3 p. 63; 10 p. 254. 





: 


6. In a wider use the Dative of the thing is employed of every 
thing im reference to which an action or a state comes to pass. 
Accordingly, it is used 

a. To designate the sphere to which a general predicate is to be 
conceived as confined (cf. Bhdy. 84; Krii. 74) ; as, 1 Cor. xiv. 20 
μὴ παιδία γίνεσθε ταῖς φρεσίν, ἀλλὰ τῇ κακίᾳ νηπιάξετε children 
in understanding, children in reference to malice (Plat. Alcib. pr. 
122 c.), Rom. iv. 20 ἐνεδυναμώθη τῇ πίστει he grew strong in faith, 229 
Phil. ii. 8 σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος, iii. δ; Matt. v. [3] 8; 
ΧΙ. 29; Acts vii.51; xiv.8; xvi. 5; xviii. 2; xx. 22; Rey. iy, 3; Ὑ 
1 Cor. vii. 34; Heb. v.11; xi. 12; xii. 3; 1 Pet. iii. 18; v.9 
(Pol. 20, 4,7); Gal. i. 22; Rom. xii. 10f.; Col. ii.5; Eph. iv. 18, 
23 (Mtth. 898; Fr. Rom. III. 68). Such a Dat. is intercalated 
in Eph. ii. 3 ἦμεν τέκνα φύσει. ὀργῆς as respects nature, naturally, 
children of wrath. 

Ὁ. Of the rule, or standard, according to which something takes 
place; as, Acts xv. 1 ἐὰν μὴ περιτέμνησθε τῷ ἔθει Moicéws (on 
the other hand, xvii. 2 κατὰ τὸ εἰωθός, and more frequently κατὰ 


1 Yet ἄγειν τινί (cf. mposdyew τινί § 52, 4,14.) is not in all these cases used in a purely 
local or material sense; but rather means introduce to one’s acquaintance. . Similarly 
φοιτᾶν τινι (to attend one as teacher), different from φοιτᾶν πρός τ. Epict. ench. 33, 13. 


216 § 31. DATIVE. 


ἔθος. cf. Xen. Ο. 1, 2,4; Sext. Emp. 2,6; Strabo 15, 715 (Tob. 
iii. 8; 2 Mace. vi. 1). 
c. Of the occasion or cause (on account of); as, Rom. xi. 20 τῇ 
203 ἀπιστίᾳ ἐξεκλάσθησαν because of wnbelief (cf. 80 ἠλεήθητε τῇ τού- 
Τὰ αἱ, των ἀπειθείᾳ), Gal. vi. 12; Col. i. 21—also of the motive (through, 
Srom, etc.) 1 Cor. vill. 7 τῇ συνειδήσει τοῦ εἰδώλου ὡς εἰδωλόθυτον 
ἐσθίουσι, 2 Cor.i. 15; Rom. iv. 20. See Diog. L. 2, 57; Heliod. 1, 
12, 33; Paus. 3, 7,3; Joseph. antt. 17, 6,1; cf. Ast, Plat. Polit. 
p. 392; Goeller, Thuc. p. 157, 184, etc. ; Mtth.894f.; Bhdy.102f.; 
Kri. 73. 


The use of the Dative in Rev. viii. 4 ἀνέβη ὃ καπνὸς τῶν θυμιαμάτων 
Tats προςευχαῖς τῶν ἁγίων, etc. is more strange, and has given rise to 
numerous conjectures. The simplest translation probably is: there went 
up the smoke of the incense (of the angels) for the prayers, i.e. the ascend- 
194 ing smoke availed for the prayers, to attend and render them more accept- 
6th οὐ. able (on the representation see Ewald in loc.). Expositors who supplied 
σύν took the same view of the expression. On the other hand the rendering 
inter preces sanctorum is by no means justifiable. In 2 Cor. vii. 11 the Dat, 
τῷ πράγματι is certainly allowable, yet harsh for the language of the N.T.; 
ἐν τῷ πράγματι has good authorities in its favor, and the ἐν was probably 
omitted, either because it was absorbed by the εἶναι or because ἐν παντὶ ... 

was taken with πράγματι. 


7. In the uses adduced under 6. the Dative of, direction, and 
consequently (according to Greek views) the Dative proper, is still 
to be detected more or less clearly; but this case, by a further 
outward extension of its import to whatever accompanies the 
action, passes over altogether into the Ablative, 

d. When it designates the mode and manner, as casus modalis 
(Bhdy. 100 f.), 1 Cor, xi. 5 προςευχομένη ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ 
with the head uncovered, x. 30; Col. ii. 11; Phil. 1. 18 ; 2 Pet. ii. 4 
(Jude 6), also Rom. viii. 24 τῇ ἐλπίδι ἐσώθημεν (and Eph. v.19) ;— 
or the instrument (casus instrumentalis Mdy. 45, yet ef. Krii. 72), 
as 1 Pet. i. 18 οὐ φθαρτοῖς, ἀργυρίῳ ἢ χρυσίῳ, ἐλυτρώθητε, Gal. ii. 18 
ὥςτε... συναπήχθη αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρίσει (2 Pet. ili. 17 ef. Zosim. 5, 
6), Eph. i. 18; Col. ii. 7; Phil. iii. 3; 1 Cor. ix. 7 ris στρατεύεται 

230 ἰδίοις ὀψωνίοις ποτέ with his own resources, at his own expense, 
Heb. vi. 17 ἐμεσίτευσεν ὅρκῳ, i. 3; Rom. xv. 18, — likewise Acts 
i. 5 ἐβάπτισεν ὕδατι (xi. 16), Jno. xxi. 8 τῷ πλοιαρίῳ ἦλθον, Mark 
vi. 82 (though elsewhere we find ἐν πλοίῳ, Matt. xiv.13; Acts xxviii. 
11; D.S.19, 54), Acts xii. 2; Rom. i. 20 ; iii. 24 ; Tit. iii. 7; Eph. 
v.19,etc. To this head may also be referred Heb. xii. 18 ὄρος κεκαυ- 


§ 31. DATIVE. 217 


μένον πυρί igni ardens, burning in, with, fire, (Exod. iii. 2; Deut 
iv. 11; ix.15; ef: Lob. Paralip. p. 523 sq.). [ἡ Rom. xii, 12 τῇ 
ἐλπίδι χαίροντες is through (in) hope rejoicing. In reference to 
δεήσει in 2 Cor. ix. 14 I now agree with Mey. We often find ἐν or 
διά (especially of persons) used for the instrumental Dative ; as, 
Rom. xv. 18; 2 Cor. xi. 23, 26 f. 


A virtual Ablative will be perceived also in μεθύσκεσθαι οἴνῳ Eph. y. 18 
(Proy. iv. 17), and in πληροῦσθαί τινι Rom. i. 29; 2 Cor. vii. 4 (Eurip. 204 
Here. fur. 372, cf. πλήρης τινί Eurip. Bacch. 18 —oftener with the Gen. — Mh οἱ, 
Bhdy. 168, in later writers πλησθέντες ἀγνοίᾳ Malal. p. 54). (But in Eph. 

iii. 19 eis with the Acc. is not used for the Ablative. The preposition ex- 
presses rather: filled up to the fulness, etc.) 


8. In all these (6a. et seq.) relations, however, prepositions are 
not rarely and sometimes even more usually employed, — both in 
Greek prose, and still more in N. T. Greek, — with or without a 
modification of the meaning; viz. 

For a. ἐν, 1 Pet. iv. 1 ἐν σαρκὶ παθών in connection with σαρκὶ 
παθ.. Tit. i. 13 cf. ii. 2; διαφέρειν ἔν τινι 1 Cor. xv. 41 (Soph. Oed. 
C. 1112; Dion. H. ep. p. 225. Krii.). 

For b. κατά, as almost always κατὰ τὸ ἔθος, εἰωθός Luke iv. 16 ; 
Acts xvii. 2. 

For ὁ. διά with the Acc. see ὃ 49 ο. p. 398 sq. | 

For ἃ. διά or é also μετά. Thus we find instead of βαπτίξζε- 
σθαι ὕδατι usually ἐν ὕδατι (in water) Matt. iii. 11; Jno. i. 26, 31 
(but also ἐν πνεύματι), for Bia always μετὰ Bias Acts v. 26; xxiv. 
Τ; for πίστει also διὰ πίστεως, etc. But in Eph. ii. 8 τῇ χάριτι 
ἐστε σεσωσμένοι διὰ τῆς πίστεως and Rom. iii. 24 the Dat. expresses 
the motive, διὰ rior. the subjective means ; and in 2 Pet. iii. 5 διὰ 
refers to the material means, the Dat. to the immaterial. For 
παντὶ τρόπῳ Phil. i. 18 we find ἐν παντὶ τρόπῳ 2 Thess. iii. 16. 
On the other hand, in 2 Pet. ii. 3 the Dat. is used of the means, 
and ἐν denotes the state (the disposition). 


When, however, N. T. expositors took ἐν simply for a nota dativi (cf. 195 
Blomfield, Aeschyl. Agam. 1425, and Eurip. Med. p. 628), even where a 6th ed, 
Dative proper (not an Ablative) is required, they went too far, and their 
opinion could not find even a remote support in the Hebrew idiom. Most 231 
of the passages quoted are plausible only because in such connection else- 
where the Dative of a person is commonly employed (cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 11; 

iii. 1; i. 18), but in reality they are quite irrelevant. In Acts iv. 12 
δεδομένον ἐν ἀνθρώποις is most certainly: given (promulged) among men, 
28 


218 § 81. DATIVE. 


cf. 2 Cor. viii. 1;! Gal. i. 16 ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί to reveal his 
son in me (ἐν τῷ πνεύματί pov) ; 1 Jno. iv. 9 ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ 
ἐν ἡμῖν, the love of God was manifested in (respect to, on) us which differs 
unquestionably from to us; 1 Cor. xiv. 11 ὃ λαλῶν ἐν ἐμοὶ βάρβαρος ac- 
cording to me, in my estimation (meo judicio, cf. Jacobs, Athen. p. 183 ; 
Déderlein, Oed. Col. p. 529; Wex, Soph. Antig. v. 549); 1 Cor. ii. 6 σοφίαν 
λαλοῦμεν ἐν τοῖς τελείοις Means: among or with, before, (coram see Plat. 
symp. 175 e., frequently in the orators § 48a.) them that are perfect, ete. 
(i.e. when we have to deal with such) ef. Judith vi. 2. Baumgarten has 
in the main correctly explained 2 Cor. iv. 3 ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις ἐστὶ κεκα- 
205 λυμμένον: ts hid in (among, with) them that perish. On ὁμολογεῖν ἔν τινι 
ith οἱ, see § 82, 80. Acts xiii. 15 and Col. ii. 13 require no explanation, and Eph. 
li. 5 νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασι is not grammatically parallel to ‘the last 
passage. In Eph. i. 20 ἐνήργησεν ἐν Χριστῷ is quite regular: (power) which 
he exhibited in Christ (by raising him from the dead). Matt. xvii. 12 
ἐποίησαν ἐν αὐτῷ ὅσα ἠθέλησαν (Mark ix. 13 ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ) is: they did, 
perpetrated on him, cf. Mark xiv. 6; Jno. xiv. 30; Luke xxiii. 31; 1-Cor. 
ix. 15 (Gen. xl. 14; Judith vii. 24). Likewise correct is the expression 
2 Cor. x. 12 μετρεῖν ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἑαυτοῖς : measuring themselves on (with) 
themselves, though in Greek authors the Dative alone is in use, Aristot. 
rhet. 2, 12; Herod. 1, 6, 2. 


9. Zime, as that substratum with which all events are connected, 
is expressed by the Dative in answer to the question When; 
whether it denotes, 

a, A space of time; as, Luke viii. 29 πολλοῖς χρόνοις συνηρπάκει 
αὐτόν within (during) a long time, Acts viii. 11; xiii. 20; Rom. 
xvi. 25; Jno. ii. 20 (not Eph. iii. 5); ef. Joseph. antt. 1, 3, 5 τὸ 
ὕδωρ ἡμέραις τεσσαράκοντα ὅλαις κατεφέρετο, Soph. Trach. 599 
μακρῷ χρόνῳ, Aeschin. ep. 1. p. 121 ο. ; Diod. 8. 19, 93. 

b. Or (more frequently) a point of time, αὖ which something takes 
place ;—and that, too, in words that directly signify the notion of 
time or a division of time says! a.numeral or Genitive annexed, 

196 Krii. 57), as Luke xii. 20 ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί, Mark vi. 21 “Ηρώδης τοῖς 
oa γενεσίοις αὑτοῦ δεῖπνον ἐποίησε, Matt. [xiv. 6 γενεσίοις γενομένοις 
according to Lachmann’s reading, sustained also by Cod. Sinait.] 
xx. 19 τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα ἀναστήσεται, xxvi. 17; Luke xiii. 16; Acts 
232 vii. 8; xii. 21; xxi. 26; xxii. 13; xxvii. 23, or in names of festivals 
(Wannowski, p. 86) Luke xiii. 14 τῷ σαββάτῳ ἐθεράπευσε (xiv. 1), 
Matt. xii. 1 τοῖς σάββασι ete. Cf. Plat. conv. 174 ἃ. ; Mdy. 48. 


1 So also in Diog. L. 1, 105 τί ἐστιν ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἀγαθόν τε καὶ φαῦλον, where, too, 
the Latin translator has: quidnam esset hominibus bonum ete. Cf. besides, Fabric 
Pseudepigr. I. 628 δουλεύσουσιν ἐν τοῖς ἐχθροῖς αὐτῶν, Arrian. Epict. 1, 18, 8. 


§ 31. DATIVE. 219 


Yet ἐν is inserted, regularly in the last case, and frequently also 
in the first (especially with ἐσχάτη ἡμέρα or ἡμέρα τῆς κρίσεως), 
even in Luke (iii. 1; i. 26), cf. Krii. 57; the expression τῇ ἑορτῇ 
or ταῖς ἑορταῖς without ἐν is rare even in Greek authors ( Wan- 
nowski, 88). 


The Dative of place is not deeply rooted in the N.T. Before names 
of cities ἐν is always put; as, ἐν Ῥώμῃ, ἐν Τύρῳ Acts xvii. 6; xix.1; Rom. 
i. 7; 2 Tim. i. 17; iv. 20, ete. But ὁδός occasionally dispenses with the 
preposition ; as, Jas. ii. 25 ἑτέρᾳ ὁδῷ ἐκβαλοῦσα (where, however, the prepos. 
was hardly necessary) cf. Xen. Cyr. 1, 2, 16, ὁδῷ πορεύεσθαι Jude vs. 11; 
Acts xiv. 16 (trop.) ef. Lucian. Tim. 5 ὁδῷ βαδίζειν (Fr. Rom. IIT. 140 sq.), 
στοιχεῖν τοῖς ἴχνεσι Rom. iv. 12 (βαίνειν ἴχνεσι Plut. Sol. 30), with which 
are to be classed also the figurative expressions πορ. τῷ φόβῳ Acts ix. 31 ; 
xiv. 16; Prov. xxviii. 26 ; 2 Sam. xy. 11; 1 Mace? vi. 23; Bar. i. 18; ii. 10; 
iv. 13; Tob. i. 2; iv. 5 (interchangeably with πορ. ἐν 1 Pet. iv. 3, etc.) 
and even περιπατεῖν τοῖς ἔθεσι Acts xxi. 21; 2 Cor. xii. 18, Gal. v. 16; 
Rom. xiii. 18. Generally, even in Greek prose, the use of the Dativus 

“localis is very limited ; see Mdv. 48; Poppo, Thue. 1, 143. 


10. The Dative (of a person) with Passives instead of ὑπό, παρά, 
etc. with the Gen., is but seldom employed (and then usually with 
the Perfect): Luke xxiii. 15 οὐδὲν ἄξιον θανάτου ἐστὶ πεπραγμένον 
αὐτῷ (Isocr. paneg. ὁ. 18). Yet this construction is not entirely 
the same as that with ὑπό etc.; it denotes the person not by 
whom something has been done, but to whom what has been done 
belongs (Mdv. 45; Krii. 72; Benseler, Isocr. Evag. p. 13). It is 
used in particular with εὑρίσκεσθαι 2 Cor. xii. 20; 2 Pet. iii. 14; 
Rom. x. 20 Sept. ; cf. besides Luke xxiv. 35 (Jas. iii. 18) Phil. iv. 5 
(Acts xxiv. 14), also 2 Pet. ii. 19 where ᾧ τις ἥττηται means, by 
what aman 18 overcome, to what he is inferior, (in classic Greek 
ἡττᾶσθαί Twos). But in Acts xvi. 9 ὥφθη ὅραμα τῷ Παύλῳ means 
became’ visible to him (as often elsewhere ὀφθῆναί tux appear to 
one). In Jas. ili. 7 τῇ φύσει τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ means rather by the 
nature of man (ingeniis hominum). In general, the Dative of a 
thing with Passives (probably also in Rom. xii. 16, see Fr. in loc.) 
is less surprising, as it coincides with the Dative of the means. 
In Heb. iv. 2 τοῖς ἀκούσασιν indicates probably the persons with or 
in whom the μὴ συγκρ. τῇ πίστει occurred. Lastly, Matt. v. 21 ff. 
ἐῤῥήθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις should be translated: to them of old time; 
see Tholuck, Bergpr. 158f. The above use of the Dative (of a 
pers.) after Passives is known likewise in Greek prose, but it is 
especially frequent after participles; cf. Dem. Olynth. 3, p. 12c.; 


206 
Tth ed. 


233 


220 881, DATIVE. 


Theocrin. 507¢.; coron. 824 ἃ. ; Conon. 781b.; Diog. L. 8, 6; 
Philostr. her. 4, 2. 


Note 1. The Dative in Col. ii. 14 ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς 
δόγμασι, is noticeable. Some expositors explain it ὃ ἣν ἐν τοῖς δόγμασιν 
quod constabat placitis (mos.), conformably to Eph. ii. 15 τὸν νόμον TOV 

197 ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασι καταργήσας ---- an explanation correct doubtless as re- 

6th ed. spects the sense, but at variance with the grammar ; for according to it 
Paul must have written: xepdyp. τὸ ἐν τοῖς δόγμασι. Now in the first 
place as regards Eph. ii. 15 the expression τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασι must 
undoubtedly be taken as one idea: commandments in (individual) ordinances, 
cf. § 20, 2. And in Col., all things considered, δόγμασι cannot be taken 
otherwise than as closely connected with τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον : the 
bond (in force) against us through the ordinances, and Paul perhaps em- 
ployed the word δόγμασι ἴῃ this passage to bring out the notion with prom- 
inence. Meyer's explanation: what has been written with commandments 
(Dat. like what has been written with letters), is the more forced, because 
the word χειρόγραφον has acquired from usage so distinct and independent 
a meaning that it can scarcely take such a Dative after it, as if equivalent 
to γεγραμμένον. 

Note 2. What Kiihnél remarks on Matt. viii. 1, viz. that Datives absolute 
are sometimes put for Genitives absolute, as καταβάντι αὐτῷ for καταβάντος 
αὐτοῦ, Matt. xxi. 23 ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ for ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ, was indeed formerly 
believed, in general, even by scholars (Fischer, Well. III. a. p. 391; 
Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. II. 8304; Heupel, Mark p. 79). In reality, however, 
all such Datives (at least in the better class of authors, Wannowski, p. 

207 91 sqq.) may be as easily explained from the nature of the Dative, as the 

ith el. Genitive absolute is from the nature of the Genitive ; see Bhdy. 82; Stallb. 
Plat. Protag. 60; Rost, Gr. 7128 The remark cannot with the slightest 
plausibility be applied to the passages quoted above from the N. T., as 
both καταβάντι and ἐλθόντι follow the verb ἀκολουθεῖν ; at the same time 
it must be confessed that the author might also have written: καταβάντος 
αὐτοῦ ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ ὄχλοι πολλοί, cf. Matt. viii, 28; Mark y. 2 var. 
There is only this peculiarity in these constructions, that in all αὐτῷ is 
repeated (because several other words are inserted between the Dative of 
the participle and the governing verb). In the passages quoted by Kypke 
I. 47 from Pausan. and Joseph., either there is simply a pronoun joined 
to the participle, or the pronoun is directly connected with the verb (Joseph. 
antt. 8, 13, 4); accordingly, they do not prove the point in question. 
Even in Acts xxii. 6, 17 the Datives are not properly absolute. In the 
latter passage pot ὑποστρέψαντι, precisely as in vs. 6, belongs with ἐγένετο. 

234 Then follows a quite different construction (with the Genit. absol.) : accidit 
mihi reverso, cum precabar in templo, ete. Cf. Paus. 3, 10, 7 and 25, 3. 

Note 3. Two Datives, the one of a person and the other (explaining, 
more closely defining) of a thing, occur in 2 Cor. xii. 7 ἐδόθη μοι σκόλοψ 


§ 32. ACCUSATIVE. 271 


τῇ σαρκί a thorn was given me for (in) the flesh (Exod. iv. 9; Gen. xlvii. 24) 

cf. in Homer δίδου of ἡνία χερσίν ; Reisig, Soph. Oedip C. 266; Elmsley, 
Eurip. Bacch. p. 49, 80, ed. Lips.; Bornem. Xen. conviv. p. 214; Jacobs, 
Achill. Tat. p. 811; Ast, Plat. lege. p. 278. The two Datives in Eph. iii. 5; 
Rom. vii. 25; Heb. iv. 2; Rev. iv. 3 are of a different nature, and require “Ὁ 
no remark. 

Note 4. A very singular Dative occurs in 2 Cor. vi. 14 μὴ γίνεσθε ἕτε- 
ροζυγοῦντες ἀπίστοις, where some understand σύν, while others attribute 198 
this meaning to the Dative itself. But, though the Dat. is sometimes to 6th ed 
be resolved by with (Reitz, Lucian. VI. 599, Bip.; Mtth. 907 ; cf. Polyaen. 

8, 28), this is an entirely different case. The apostle seems to have 
expressed himself elliptically, and to have suited the Dative rather to the 
thought than to the words. He evidently means: μὴ γίν. ἕτερ. καὶ οὕτως 
ὁμοζυγοῦντες (συζυγ.) ἀπίστοις do not put yourselves into an unsuitable yoke, 
that is, be not united in the same yoke with unbelievers. 


§ 32. ACCUSATIVE. 


1. The Accusative is strictly the Objective Case when joined to 
transitive verbs (active, middle, or deponent); as, κόπτειν τὴν 
θύραν, κόπτεσθαι τ. κεφαλήν, φυλάσσειν τ. κῆπον, φυλάσσεσθαι τὰς 
ἐντολάς. It must be remarked, however, that, 

a. Not only in later and especially in Biblical Greek, many 908 
neuter verbs received a transitive (causative) meaning (μαθητεύ- Th ed. 
ew τινά ὃ 38,1.) ; but, 

‘b. In general, certain classes of verbal notions which we con- 
sider as either entirely or mainly intransitive, were regarded by 
the Greeks as transitive. Such are, 

a. Verbs denoting an affection of the mind ; as, ἐλεεῖν Matt. ix. 

27; Mark v. 19; Phil. ii. 27, etc. (Plato, symp. 178 c.; Ael. 13, 31) 
aud οἰκτείρειν Rom. ix. 15, LXX. (Soph. El. 1403 ; Xen. 0. 5,4, 32; 
Lucian. abd. 6; Tim. 99), ἐπαισχύνεσθαί τινα and τι Mark viii. 38; 
Heb. xi. 16; Rom. i. 16 (Plat. Soph. 247 ¢.; ef. αἰσχύνεσθαι Soph. 235 
Oed. R. 1079; Eurip. Io 1074); the last once takes ἐπί, Rom. 

vi. 21 ef. Isocr. permut. 778. On the contrary, σπλαγχνίζεσθαι is 
regularly construed with ἐπί, only once does it govern the Gen. 
Matt. xviii. 27, see § 33. ᾿Εντρέπεσθαί twa, to reverence one, Matt. 
xxi. 37; Luke xviii. 2; Heb. xii. 9, is a later construction, from 

the time of Plut.; earlier authors said ἐντρ. τινος. 

β. Verbs denoting to treat one well or ill (harm, benefit), or to 
speak well or il of one: ἀδικεῖν, βλάπτειν, ὠφελεῖν, λυμαίνεσθαί, 
ὑβρίζειν τινά (Xen. Hell. 2, 4,17; Lucian. pisc. 6); ἐπηρεάξειν 


222 § 82. ACCUSATIVE. 


τινά (with Dat. pers. Xen. M. 1, 2, 31), λοιδορεῖν twa Ino. ix. 28; 
Mtth. 871, βλασφημεῖν twa Matt. xxvii. 39; Acts xix. 87; Rev. 
xiii. 6, etc., yet also εἴς twa Luke xii. 10; ef. Demosth. cor. nav. 
Ρ. 715¢.; Diod. 8. 2, 18 and LXX. hist. Drac. 9 (like the Greek 
ὀνειδίζειν εἴς τινα and ὑβρίζειν eis twa Lucian. Tim. 31) and ἔν tive 
2 Pet. ii. 12 (in Greek authors also περί τινος Isocr. permut. 736), 
ὀνειδίζειν τινά Matt. v.11 (LXX. cf. Rom. xv. 3) Schaef. Plutarch. 
V. 347 (earlier writers say ὀνειδιζ. τινί or εἴς Twa), κακῶς ἐρεῖν τινα 
Acts xxiii. 5 (Plat. Euthyd. 284e.; D.S. Vat. p. 66), also κατα- 
ρᾶσθαί twa Matt. v. 44; Jas. ili. 9 (Wisd. xii. 11; Ecclus. iv. 5, 
etc., with Dative Xen. A. 7,7,48). All these constructions are 
finally grounded on the simple λέγειν or εἰπεῖν twa, Jno. i. 15; viii. 
27; Phil. iii. 18, ete. (Jud. vii. 4); οἵ, Hm. Soph. Oed. C. 1404; 
Mtth. 11. 929. On the other hand, we find καλῶς ποιεῖν with the 
199 Dative of a person, Luke vi. 27 (Acts xvi. 28 μηδὲν πράξῃς σεαυτῷ 
th οἱ, κακόν is of another kind, and this, with similar expressions, is fre- 
quent in Greek writers, Lys. accus. Agor. 41; Xen. C. 5, 4, 11; 
5, 5,14; 8, 7, 24), and also ed ποιεῖν Mark xiv. 7. In Greek prose 
the Acc. is here always preferred, see Biblioth. Brem. nova I. 277. 
Yet cf. Odyss. 14, 289 ὃς δὴ πολλὰ κάκ᾽ ἀνθρώποισιν éwpyer. But 
ποιεῖν twa τι to do something to one occurs also in the N. 'T. Matt. 
xxvii. 22; Mark xv. 12. Cf. Aristoph. nub. 258 sq. 
γ- “Ouview twa Jas. v. 12 (οὐρανόν) swear by, cf. Hos. iv. 15; 
Xen. Ὁ. 5, 4, 81; Herod. 2, 10, 3. 
Yet in the N. T. these verbs are not invariably connected with 
the obj. Ace.; many still vary, as in Greek authors, between a 
transitive and a neuter construction: κλαίειν with Acc. Matt. ii. 18 
Sept., but ἐπί twa Luke xix. 41; xxiii. 28; πενθεῖν twa 2 Cor. 
xii. 21, but ἐπί τινι Rev. xviii. 11; κόπτεσθαι twa Luke viii. 52 
209 (Eurip. Troad. 628 ; 1 Macc. ii. 70) and ἐπί twa Rey. i. 7; xviii. 9; 
Τὰ ol. εὐδοκεῖν τινα Heb. x. 6, 8 Sept. (Lev. xxvi. 34; Ps. li. 18), usually 
ἔν τινι. ᾿Ομνύειν is mostly treated as neuter, and construed with 
κατά τινος, Heb. vi. 18, 16 (Amos viii. 14; Zeph.i.5; Isa. xlv. 23 ; 
236 Schaef. Long. p. 358) or ἔν τινι Matt. v. 84 ff.; Rev. x. 6 (Jer. v. 
2,7; Ps. lxiii,12), But in 2 Cor. i. 11 edyap. (τινί) Te occurs for 
εὐχαριστεῖν (τινι) ἐπί τινε (in a Passive acceptation) ; and in 2 Cor, 
ix. 2; xi. 80 we find καυχᾶσθαι with the Ace. of the thing. 


With Jude 15 τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν (ἃ) ἠσέβησαν compare Zeph. 
iii. 11 τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων σου ὧν ἠσέβησας εἰς ἐμέ (ἀσεβεῖν τι Plato, legg. 12, 
941 a. is of another description, Mtth. 923). 

Ἱερουργεῖν, ἐργάζεσθαι and ἐμπορεύεσθαι are real transitives, and as ἕερ. 


§ 82, ACCUSATIVE. 223 


θυσίαν is a proper expression (Palaeph. 5, 3 cf. Acta apocr. 113), so iep. 
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον Rom. xv. 16 in a figurative sense, is quite correct. Ἔμπο- 
peveoOa has not only an Acc. of the merchandise but an Acc. of a person, 
ἐμπ. twa Ezek. xxvii. 21; this in 2 Pet. ii. 3 means: make merchandise 
(gain) of you. Lastly, with Rev. xviii. 17 ὅσοι τὴν θάλασσαν ἐργάζονται 
compare Appian. Pun. 2; Boisson. Philostr. p.452. Similar is γῆν épyag. 
Paus. 6, 10, 1. 

Εαγγελίζεσθαι (of Christian preaching) is employed in the N. T. quite 
like a transitive with the Acc. of a person ; as, Luke iii. 18 ; Acts viii. 25 ; 

xiv. 21; compare especially εὐαγγ. τινά τι Acts xiii. 32. Yet εὐαγγ. τινι 
also occurs Luke iv. 18; Rom. i. 15; Gal. iv. 13; 1 Pet. iv. 6. 

Bacxaivey fascinare also is construed with the Acc. Gal. iii, 1. In the 
signification invidere it has the Dat. (Philostr.epp. 13) Lob. 463. Yet the 
ancient grammarians are not agreed among themselves on the distinction 
between the constructions, see Wetsten. 11. 221 sq. Παραινεῖν, which in 
Gr. writers usually goyerns the Dat. of a person (Aesch. dial. 2, 13; Pol. 5, 
4,7), has the Acc. in Acts xxvii.22. On the other hand, we find in Rey. 

ii. 14 διδάσκειν τινί (var.), as in some later writers; see Schaef. Plut. V. 22. 

Φυλάσσεσθαι, to beware of, likewise governs the Acc. in Acts xxi. 25; 

2 Tim. iv. 15 (as frequently in Greek authors, Xen. M. 2, 2, 14; Lucian. 
asin. 4; D.S. 20, 26), as if to observe, keep a watch on, some one Sor one’s 
self ; on the other hand, in Luke xii. 15 ἀπό follows it —a construction 
not unknown also to the Greeks (Xen. Cyr. 2, 3, 9). 

In a similar way, φοβεῖσθαι to be afraid in reference to something, to 200 
fear something (for one’s self) is usually construed with the Acc., but Sth ed 
sometimes has ἀπό (to be afraid of, sibi ab al. timere); as, Matt. x. 28 
μὴ φοβεῖσθε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτενόντων τὸ σῶμα ... φοβηθῆτε δὲ μᾶλλον τὸν 
δυνάμενον, ete. Greek authors say φοβ. ὑπό τινος or τινι (yet compare φόβος * 
ἀπό twos Xen. Cyr. 3, 3, 53; 6, 3,27). Φοβεῖσθαι ἀπό is an imitation of 
the Hebrew 72 (or 283) xt? (Jer. i. 8). According to this analogy are 
construed also βλέπειν ἀπό (praegnanter) Mark viii. 15; xii. 38, and zpos- 
éxew ἀπό Matt. xvi. 6. On the other hand, Phil. iii. 2 βλέπετε τὴν κατατομήν 
etc. observe, keep your eye on (βλέπειν τι as signifying to beware of, could 
receive no confirmation from φυλάσσεσθαί τι, since the Mid. voice here is 210 
essential). 1700 beware is here but a derivative meaning. ith ed, 

Pevyew governs the Acc. in a figurative sense in 1 Cor. vi. 18; 2 Tim. 237 
ii. 22 (to flee a vice, i.e. to shun) ; but once it has ἀπό, 1 Cor. x. 14 φεύγετε 
ἀπὸ τῆς εἰδωλολατρείας. This last construction is otherwise very usual in 
the N. T. (as in the Sept.), and φεύγειν ἀπό twos means either to flee from 
one in various senses (Jno. x. 5; Rey. ix. 6; Mark xiv. 52; Jas. iv. 7), 
or (including the result of fleeing) to escape Matt. xxiii. 33. In Greek 


authors, φεύγειν ἀπό occurs only in a strictly local sense, Xen. Cyr. 7, 2, 4; 
Mem. 2, 6, 31; Plato, Phaed. 62 d.; Pol. 26, 5, 2. 


On χρῆσθαί τι see § 31, 1, i. p. 209 sq. 


224 § 82. ACCUSATIVE. 


The Ace. of the place to which, after verbs of motion, was confined 
in the classics, after the full use of prepositions had been introduced, 
mostly to poetry (Mtth. 747). From the character of the language 
of the N.T., one would expect only a preposition in such a case. 
Even Acts xxvii. 2 μέλλοντι πλεῖν τοὺς κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν τόπους 
(where, however, in several good Codd. [Sin. also] εἰς is inserted). 
forms no exception ; itmust be rendered: sail to the places along the 
Asiatic coast. In this signification πλεῖν is used by the best authors 
(as a strictly transitive verb) with the Acc. (also of places on the 
coast),! ef. Poppo, Thue. 6, 36. 

2. Neuter verbs expressing a feeling or act, frequently take an 
Acc. of a noun which is either from the same root or from one of 
kindred signification. Such nouns, inasmuch as they merely denote 
substantively the notion of the verb, are virtually implied in it. 
They are never annexed, except when the meaning of the verb has 
to be extended (Hm. Soph. Philoct. 281; Eurip. Androm. 220 sq. ; 
Krii. 16 f.) either by an (Objective) Genitive, as 1 Pet. iii. 14 τὸν 
φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε (Isa. viii. 12), Col. ii. 19 αὔξει τὴν 
αὔξησιν τοῦ θεοῦ (Plat. legg. 10, 910d. ἀσεβεῖν ἀνδρῶν ἀσέβημα, 
1 Mace. ii. 58 ζηλῶσαι ζῆλον νόμου, Judith ix. 4); or by means 
of an Adjective, as Matt. ii. 10 ἐχάρησαν χαρὰν μεγάλην σφόδρα, 
Jno. vii. 24 τὴν δικαίαν κρίσιν κρίνετε, 1 Tim. i. 18 ἵνα στρατεύῃ τὴν 

201 καλὴν στρατείαν (Plutarch. Pomp. 41), Mark iv. 41 ἐφοβήθησαν 
th el. φόβον μέγαν, 1 Tim. vi. 12; 2Tim.iv.7; Rev. xvii. 6; 1 Pet. iii. 6 
(LXX. Gen. xxvii. 33; Zech. i.15; Jon.i.10; iv.1,6; Wisd. ix.3). 

᾿ This, too, is very common in Greek authors, see Fischer, Well. 
III. 1.422sq.; Bhdy.106f.; Ast, Plat. Polit. 316; Weber, Dem. 471, 
238 especially Lob. Paralip. 501 sqq. (Mtth. 744 f., 910f., 941) ef. Plato, 
Protag. 360 Ὁ. αἰσχροὺς φόβους φοβοῦνται, Xen. M. 1, 5, 6 δουλεύειν 

211 δουλείαν οὐδεμιᾶς ἧττον αἰσχράν, Her. 5,119 μάχην ἐμαχέσαντο 
Τὰ οἱ, ἐσχυρήν (magnam pugnavimus pugnam Terent. Adelph. 5, 8, 57) 
Plat. Apol. 28 Ὁ. τοιοῦτον ἐπιτήδευμα ἐπιτηδεύσας, p. 86 ὁ. εὐεργετεῖν 

τὴν μεγίστην εὐεργεσίαν, Alciphr. 2, 3 δεῖταί μου πάσας, δεήσεις 
Lysias 1; Theomnest. 27 πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ ἄλλους κινδύνους μεθ᾽ 
ὑμῶν ἐκινδύνευσε (Plato, conv. 208¢.), Demosth. Neaer. 517 .; ep. 
p-121b.; Aristot. polit. 3,10; rhet. 2, 5,4; Long. 4,3; Aeschin. 

ep. 1,121b.; Lucian. asin. 11; Philostr. Apoll. 2,32. Further 

see Georgi, Vind. 199 sqq.; Wetst. II. 321 (Gesen. Lg. 810). This 


1 Wahl’s parallels from Xen. Hell. 4, 8,6; Pol. 3,4, 10 only confirm the phrase 
πλεῖν τὴν θάλασσαν, τὰ πελάγη, Of which instances already existed in 1 Mace.xiii. 29; 
Ecclus. xliii. 24. 


8 82. ACCUSATIVE. 225 


construction occurs with the passive in Rev. xvi. 9 ἐκαυματίσθησαν 
οἱ ἄνθρωποι καῦμα μέγα (Plato, Euthyd. 275 6. ὠφελεῖται τὴν peyl- 
στην ὠφέλειαν, Plutarch. Caes. 55 a.). 


We find the same construction in a relative clause in Jno. xvii. 26 ἡ 
ἀγάπη ἣν ἠγάπησάς με, Eph. ii. 4; Mark x. 38 τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι 
βαπτισθῆναι. 


From this must be distinguished the case in which the kindred 
noun denotes the objective result of the action, consequently a 
concrete idea, as διαθήκην διατίθεσθαι (Judg. ii. 2),, μαρτυρίαν 
. μαρτυρεῖν, πλοῦτον πλουτεῖν (Dan. xi. 2), ψήφισμα ψηφίξεσθαι, 
ἁμαρτάνειν ἁμαρτίαν (1 Jno. v. 16), meaning, make a covenant, 
bear a testimony, ete., Ewald, Gr. 595. For here the noun 
does not necessarily require the support of an adjective, ete. (as 
αἰσχρὰν ἁμαρτ. ἁμαρτάνειν Soph. Phil. 1249; Plato, Phaed. 113 e. ; 
Lucian. Tim. 112; Dio Chr. 32, 361) οἵ, Eph. iv. 8 (Sept.) 7yya- 
λώτευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν (Judg. v.12; 2 Chron. xxviii. 17; Demosth. 
Steph. 2, 621b.). Yet constructions of this sort occur, for the 
most part, only through the interposition of a relative clause ; as, 
Jno. v. 32 ἡ μαρτυρία, ἣν μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ, 1 Jno. v. 10; Heb. 
viii. 10 αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη, ἣν διαθήσομαι (x. 16, but viii. 9 διαθήκην 
ποιεῖν), Acts iii. 25; Luke i. 73; 1 Jno. ii. 25; Mark iii. 28; ef. Isocr. 
Aegin. 936; Lucian. paras. 5. That such Hebrew and Greek 
expressions, however, possess greater fulness and vividness than 
our general phrases, make a covenant, bear testimony, there can be 
no doubt. 
Finally, to be separated altogether from the preceding combina- 
tions are those in which the substantive denotes something object- 
ive and material which exists independently of the action of the 
verb; as, φυλάσσειν φυλακάς (posts) Xen. A. 2, 6,10; φόρον φέρειν 
Aristoph. av. 191; Aristot. pol. 2,8; Lucian. paras.43. Compare 
from the N. T. Luke ii. 8 φυλάσσοντες φυλακὰς τῆς νυκτός, viii. 5 
Tov σπεῖραι τὸν σπόρον αὐτοῦ, Matt. xiii. 30 δήσατε δεσμὰς πρὸς τὸ 239 
[ κατακαῦσαι bind bundles, Matt. vii. 24 ὅςτις ὠκοδόμησεν τὴν οἰκίαν 
; αὐτοῦ, Luke vi. 48 cf. also 1 Pet. iv. 2 (ἀκοὴν ἀκούειν Obad.1). In 
these cases sometimes no different expression can be used (ef. ἀπο- 202 
στόλους ἀποστέλλειν, legatos legare Cic. Vatin. 15, γράμματα ypd- *th o 
gew Dem. Polycl. 710 b.), and the connection of the noun and the 
verb is purely etymological and historical. On the whole phrase- 212 
3 ology under this head, which is far more diversified in classic Τὰ οἰ, 
Greek, see Wunder on Lobeck’s Sophocl. Aj. S. 37 ff. 
29 





226 § 82. ACCUSATIVE. 


Akin to this construction is ὅρκον ὀμνύναι Luke i. 73 (Demosth. Apat. 
579 c.), βιοῦν χρόνον 1 Pet. iv. 2 (ζῆν βίον D.S. exc. Vat. p. 49), δέρειν 
(πληγὰς) πολλάς, ὀλίγας, which further takes an Acc. of a person (cf. Luke 
xii. 47). Cf. Wunder, as above, 86. On Luke ii. 44 ἦλθον ἡμέρας ὁδόν 
they went a day’s journey, or Acts viii. 89 ἐπορεύετο τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ (ef. ὁδὸν 
βαδίζειν Plut. Coriol. 9; LXX. 1 Sam. vi. 9; Num. xxi. 33; Exod. xiii. 17), 
scarcely any remark is necessary ; yet see Wunder, 41 f. 

Analogous is the construction with the Dative ; as, φωνεῖν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ 
Acts xvi, 28, and βοᾶν or κράζειν φωνῇ pey. Mark xv. 34; Matt. xxvii. 50; 
Acts vii. 60, ὅρκῳ ὀμνύναι Acts ii. 80, χαρᾷ χαίρειν 1 Thess. iii. 9 (ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι 
χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ 1 Pet.i. 8), κηρύσσειν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ Rey. ν. 2 [text. recept. ]; 
also ποίῳ θανάτῳ ἤμελλεν ἀποθνήσκειν Jno. xii. 83; xviii. 82. Cf. Aristot. 
pol. 3,9; Plut. Coriol.3 (Jonah i.16; Acta apocr. 4) Krii.17 (Bengel, Apoc. 
xviii. 2) cf. § 54, 3, p. 466. 

3. Instead of the Accusative of the object, in many cases a prep- 
osition, ἐν (3), is said to be used, according to the Hebrew construc- 
tion ; but the passages adduced, when more closely examined, soon 
show the admissibility of the preposition in its proper import: 

a. In Acts xv. 7 ὁ θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν ἐξελέξατο διὰ τοῦ στόματός μου 
ἀκοῦσαι τὰ ἔθνη etc., 3 πξ is not to be referred to, but ἐν ἡμῖν 
signifies among us (the Apostles) ; for, in the first place, the sin- 
gular μου is immediately used of Peter, and again, notice is to be 
taken of τὰ ἔθνη (as the apostolic field of labor): God made choice 
among us, that the heathen should be instructed through me. See 
also Olshausen in loc. On the Hebrew a “na, which in the Sept. 
is sometimes rendered ἐκλέγ. ἐν (1 Sam. xvi. 9; 1 Kings viii. 16; 
1 Chron. xxviii. 4; Neh. ix. 7), but which Gesenius has not even 
deemed it necessary to explain, see Ewald, Gr. 605. 

Ὁ. “Ομολογεῖν ἐν Matt. x. 82; Luke xii. 8 to make confession in 
one, i.e. (according to another construction) about one. Bengel 
otherwise. The Hebrew expression >3 mtin Ps. xxxii. 5 has not 
quite the same meaning. 

4. Two Accusatives are used, 

240 a. One of a person and the other of a thing (Mtth. 930, 932), 
uniformly after verbs of clothing and unclothing Jno. xix. 2; Matt. 
xxvii. 28, 31; Mark xv. 17; Rev. xvii. 4, of (feeding and) giving 

_\. to drink Mark ix. 41; 1 Cor. iii. 2,1 of anointing Rey. ili. 18 (Heb. 
i. 9), of loading Luke xi. 46, of adjwring (by) Acts xix. 13 ; 1 Thess. 
v. 27, of reminding (ἀναμιμνήσκειν) 1 Cor. iv. 17 (Xen. C. 3, 3, 

1 To this class belongs also ψωμίζειν Num. xi. 4; Deut. viii. 16; Wisd. xvi. 20, for 


which we find in Jambl. Pyth. 13 ψωμίζειν τινά τινι. On the other hand, in 1 Cor. xiii. 3 
ψωμίζειν πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντα means to feed out all my goods, bestow in food. 


ΣΥΝ ΡΞ να ee ee ρρέὭωὦρΕοΠτγροο ᾿ς 


τς: τς 


§ 32. ACCUSATIVE. 227 


87; Her. 6,140; but ἀναμν. τινά τινος Xen. C. 6, 4,13), of teach- 

ing Jno. xiv. 26, of asking and inquiring Matt. vii. 9; Jno. xvi. 23 ; 208 
1 Pet. iii. 15 (αἰτεῖν), Matt. xxi. 24 (Lob. Paralip. 522), Mark iv. 10 δὶ 4 
(ἐρωτᾶν). On the other hand, εὐαγγελίζεσθαι is construed only ἘΠ 
in Acts xiii. 82 with two Accusatives, cf. Heliod. 2, 10; Alciphr. 
8,12; Euseb. H. E. 3,4, var. For κρύπτειν τινά τι (Mtth. 937) 

the construction κρύπτειν τε ἀπό Twos is invariably used, Col. i. 26; 
Luke xviii. 84; xix. 42, or at least indicated. Aidacxew is once 
joined, but according to a somewhat uncertain reading, to ἔν τινε 

of the person, Rey. ii. 14 (as if instructing ona person).' Other 
and better Codd. have ἐδίδασκε τῷ Βαλάκ, cf. Thilo, Apocr. I. 656 

(> vb Job xxi. 22). Besides αἰτεῖν τινά τι, we find αἰτεῖν τι παρά 

or ἀπό twos Acts iii. 2; ix. 2; Matt. xx. 20 (Xen. A. 1, 3, 16). 
Further, ypiew twa with the Dative of the material occurs Acts 

x. 88, as ἀλείφειν uniformly, Mark vi. 13; Jno. xi. 2, etc. ; trope 
μνήσκειν τινὰ περί τινος 2 Pet. i. 12, also περιβάλλεσθαι ἐν Rev. τ΄ 
11, 5; iv.4, ἠμφιεσμένος ἐν Matt. xi. 8; Luke vii. 25 (Dat. in Plat. 
Protag. 521 a.). For ἀφαιρεῖσθαί twa τε we find ἀφαιρ. τι ἀπό 
tivos Luke xvi. 3. 


Heb. ii. 17 ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας (cf. Ecclus. xxviii. 5; Dan. ix. 24 
Theodot.) expiare peccata is perhaps to be explained by supposing that the 
expression ἱλάσκεσθαι τὸν θεὸν τὰς ἁμαρτίας had begun to be used. In 
1 Sam. iii. 14 ἐξιλασθήσεται ἀδικία οἴκου "HXi, the verb is strictly passive. 

The same view essentially may be taken (ΜΈ. 927, 939; Rost 497 ἢ 
503) of the Accusative of a pronoun (ri, τὸ αὐτό, πάντα) or neuter adjective 
(μέγα, ete.), which is joined to many verbs along with the Acc. or Gen. of 
a person (as, βλάπτειν Luke iv. 35, ὠφελεῖν Gal. v. 2 cf. Lucian. Tim. 119, 241 
ἀδικεῖν Acts xxv. 10; Gal. iv. 12; Philem. 18, μνησθῆναι 1 Cor. xi. 2) ; there 
is however this difference, that in these instances the use of two Accusa- 
tives was arrested, as it were, in the first stage. So we Germans say: 
jem. etwas, viel u.s.w. fragen, but not on this account: jem. eine Nachricht 
JSragen. Hither I refer also Matt. xxvii. 44. Instances of intransitive 
verbs which are construed with such Accusatives of a thing and have 
thus become (to a limited extent) transitives, it is scarcely necessary to 
adduce ; yet see 1 Cor. ix. 25 πάντα ἐγκρατεύεται, xi. 2; Phil. i. 6; ii. 18; 
2 Cor. vii. 14 (cf., however, 1 above) Matt. ix. 14; Rev. v. 4, ete. Fr. 
explains in the same way also Rom. vi. 10 ὃ ἀπέθανεν and Gal. ii. 20 ὃ viv 
ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, see above, ὃ 24, note 3, p. 168. 


1 This construction cannot be certainly established in reference to the Hebrew by 

2 Chron. xvii. 9, FNS ‘va> as this probably means teach in Judah. In Acts vii. 22 

ἐπαιδεύθη πάσῃ σοφίᾳ is not put for πᾶσαν σοφίαν (cf. Diod. S. 1, 91); but the Dative 

is employed to denote the means of training, whereas ἐπαιδ. πᾶσαν σοφίαν would be 

edoctus est (institutus ad) sapientiam. The true reading of the passage, however, is 
_ probably ἐν π. σοφίᾳ, cf. Plat. Crito 50d. 


228 § 32. ACCUSATIVE. 


b. An Ace. of the Subject and of the Predicate (Mtth. 934 £3 
as, Jno. vi. 15 ἵνα ποιήσωσιν αὐτὸν βασιλέα, Luke xix. 46 ὑμεῖς 
αὐτὸν (οἶκον) ἐποιήσατε σπήλαιον λῃστῶν, Heb. i. 2 ὃν ἔθηκε κληρο- 
νόμον (ἰ. 18), Jas. v. 10 ὑπόδευγμα λάβετε τῆς κακοπαθείας... τοὺς 

214 προφήτας, Heb. xii. 9 τοὺς τῆς σαρκὸς πατέρας εἴχομεν παιδευτάς, 

Τὰ οἱ Phil. iii. 7 ταῦτα (κέρδη) ἥγημαι ζημίαν, 2 Pet iii. 15 τὴν τοῦ κυρίου 

ἡμῶν μακροθυμίαν σωτηρίαν ἡγεῖσθε, Luke i. 59 ἐκάλουν αὐτὸ... 
Ζαχαρίαν, vs. 53 (Pol. 15, 2, 4). So, in particular, with verbs of 

204 making, naming (appointing), constituting, viewing as, etc., Matt. 

δ οἱ iy. 19; xxii. 43; Jno. v. 11; x. 33; xix. 7; Acts v. 31; vii. 10; 
xx. 28; Luke xii. 14; Rom. iii. 25; vi. 11; viii. 29; 1 Cor. iv. 9; 
ix.5; 2 Cor. iii. 6; Eph. ii. 14; Phil. ii. 29; Tit. ii. 7; Heb. vii. 28; 
xi. 26; Jas. ii. 5; Rev. xxi. 5; 2 Sam. ii. 5, 13; iii. 15. 

The Ace. of the Predicate (of destination) is, however, sometimes 
annexed with the preposition es, — Acts xiii. 22 ἤγειρεν αὐτοῖς τὸν 
Δαυὶδ eis βασιλέα, Vii. 21 ἀνεθρέψατο αὐτὸν ἑαυτῇ εἰς υἱόν, for, 
as, ἃ son, xiii. 47 (cf. also the Passive λογίζεσθαι εἴς τι Acts xix. 
27; Rom. ii. 26; ix. 8, § 29,3. Note), — or with ὡς, ἃ5 2 Thess. iii. 15 
kal μὴ ὡς ἐχθρὸν (τοῦτον 14) ἡγεῖσθε (35 atin). This is a Hebraistic 
construction (Ewald, Gr. 603), and is frequently imitated in the 
Sept., Isa. xlix.6; 2Kingsiv.1; Judith iii. 8; v.11; Gen. xii. 2; 
xliii. 17; 1 Sam. xv. 11; Esth. ii. 7; iv. 4. What has been ad- 
duced from classic Greek as parallel to the construction with εἰς 
is different from it, as the εἰς of destination in Her. 1, 34 πάντες 
τοῖσι χρέονται ἐς πόλεμον, Or Kurip. Troad. 1201 οὐ γὰρ eis κάλλος 
τύχας δαίμων δίδωσι, or Alciphr. 8, 28. On the other hand, real 
parallels occur in later writers, e.g. Niceph. Constant. p. 51, ed. 
Bonn. : ὁ τῆς πόλεως ἅπας δῆμος... avayopevovow εἰς βασιλέα 

242 ᾿Αρτέμιον, p. 18 εἰς γυναῖκα δίδωμί σοι αὐτήν, Geo. Pachym. I. 349 
τὴν ἐκείνου ἔκγονον λαβὼν εἰς γυναῖκα, Theophan. contin. p. 223 
κεχρισμένος εἰς βασιλέα. See, in general, the Index to Pachym., 
Leo Grammat. and Theophan. in the Bonn edition ; Acta apocr. 
p- 71. To the latter mode of expression may also be referred Heb. 
xi. 8 λαμβάν. εἰς κληρονομίαν, and perhaps Acts vii. 58 ἐλάβετε τὸν 
νόμον εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων ye received the law for ordinances 
of angels, i.e. as ordinances of angels, see Bengel in loc. ; yet εἰς 
here may be more easily explained by Matt. xii.41. In Phil. iv. 16, 
however, the construction eis τὴν χρείαν μοι ἐπέμψατε is obviously 
a different thought from τὴν χρείαν μ. ἐπ., and so does not belong 
here. 


1 On the other hand, cf. Xen. Anab. 4, 5, 24 πώλους εἰς δασμὸν βασιλεῖ τρεφομένους, ' 
whereas Arrian, Alex. 1, 26,5 τοὺς ἵππους, obs δασμὸν βασιλεῖ ἔτρεφεν, see Ellendt, in loc. 


§ 32. ACCUSATIVE. 229 


Essentially the same as the preceding constructions are Luke ix. 14 
κατακλένατε αὐτοὺς κλισίας ἀνὰ πεντήκοντα (in rows of 50), Mark vi. 39 
ἐπέταξεν αὐτοῖς ἀνακλῖναι πάντας συμπόσια συμπόσια (in separate parties). 
These Accusatives are most simply understood as predicative. See ὃ 59. 

5. Verbs which in the Active voice govern the Acc. both of a per- 
son and of a thing, retain as is well known the latter in the Passive ; 215 
as, 2 Thess. ii. 15 παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε, Luke xvi. 19 ἐνεδιδύ- ἸῺ οἱ, 
σκετο πορφύραν, Heb. vi. 9; οἵ. Phil. iii. 8; 1 Cor. xii. 15 (without 
eis!). So also in the constructions considered under 2: Luke xii. 

48 δαρήσεται ὀλίγας (cf. δέρειν τινὰ πληγάς), Mark x. 38 τὸ 
βάπτισμα, ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι, βαπτισθῆναι, Rev. xvi. 9 (cf. Lucian. 
Tox. 61; Dion. Hal. ΤΥ. 2162, 8). On the other hand, the Pred- 
tcate Acc. passes over into a Nominative: Heb. v. 10 προςαγορευθεὶς 205 
... ἀρχιερεύς, Matt. v. 9 αὐτοὶ viol θεοῦ κληθήσονται, Jas. iv. 4 6th οἱ. 
ἐχθρὸς θεοῦ καθίσταται. 

Further, the Accusative of the thing is retained by such verbs 
as, in the Active, govern a Dative of the person along with the 
Accusative of a thing, — they being treated when put in the Pas- 
sive altogether like causal verbs; as, Gal. ii.  πεπίστευμαι τὸ 
εὐαγγέλιον (from πιστεύω Twi τι, in the Passive πιστεύομαί τι). 1 Cor. 

ix. 17; Rom. iii. 2; 1 Tim. i. 11 ;1 see Fischer, Well. III. I. 437; 
Mtth. 946. The same analogy is followed by περίκειμαι Acts xxviii. 
20 τὴν ἅλυσιν ταύτην περίκειμαι (from ἅλυσις περίκειταί μοι) Heb. 
v. 2 (d’Orvill. Charit. p. 240; Mtth. 947). Accordingly, in general, 
the Accusative with Passives indicates the more remote object, 
particularly that part of the Subject where the quality denoted by 
the verb resides ; as, 1 Tim. vi. 5 διεφθαρμένοι τὸν νοῦν (as if from 
διαφθείρ. τινὶ τὸν νοῦν), 2 Tim. iii. 8; Jno. xi. 44 δεδεμένος τοὺς 248 
πόδας καὶ τὰς χεῖρας, Phil. i. 11 πεπληρωμένοι καρπὸν δικαιοσ.. 2 Cor. 
ili. 18 τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα, Heb. x. 22f. on which ef. 
Valcken. ad Herod. 7, 39; Hartung, Casus 61. 

Whether Matt. xi. 5 πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελέζονται, Heb. iv. 2 ἐσμὲν εὐηγγελισμένοι 
(verse 6) cf. 2 Sam. xviii. 31; Joel ii. 32 also come under this rule or should 
be referred to εὐαγγελίζεσθαι τινά τι, remains doubtful ; yet see § 39, 1. 


6. The Accusative employed to denote a material object only in 
a mediate or remote way was by degrees more and more extended, 
and gave rise to elliptical constructions of various sorts, which we 
must resolve by prepositions and the like. This phraseology is 
but slightly used in the N.T. It is mainly in specifications of 


1 On the other hand, e.g. 1 Cor. xiv. 34 οὐκ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, Acts xxvi. 1. 


230 § 32. ACCUSATIVE. 


time and place that the Acc. as an Objective case is still perceptible 

to us; as, Luke xxii. 41 ἀπεσπάσθη am αὐτῶν ὡςεὶ λίθου βολήν 

he withdrew from them a stone’s cast (as if by his withdrawing 

he made the distance of a stone’s cast), Jno. vi. 19 ἐληλακότες ὡς 

σταδίους εἴκοσι πέντε (Mtth. 950), 1 Pet. iv. 2 τὸν ἐπίλοιπον ἐν σαρκὶ 

βιῶσαι χρόνον, Jno. ii. 12 ἐκεῖ ἔμειναν οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας, Luke i. 75; 

ii. 41 ; xv. 29; xx.9; Jno.i.40; v.5; xi.6; Matt. ἰχ. 20; Acts 

ΧΙ. 21; Heb. xi. 23; iii. 17; Mdv. 88 ἢ, The Ace. is thus in the 

N.T. commonly employed to denote the duration of time (but in 

Jno. v. 5 ἔτη is governed by ἔχων, see Mey.) ; sometimes also the 

216 (approximate) point of time, as Jno. iv. 52 ἐχθὲς ὥραν ἑβδόμην 

εἰ, ἀφῆκεν αὐτὸν ὁ πυρετός, Acts x. 8; Rey. iii. 8 (where more fre- 
quently περί with the Acc. is used) Krii. 18 f. 

When the Acc., annexed as a detached word or phrase to other 
words, gives a dower specification as respects sort, number, degree, 
sphere —as Jno. vi. 10 ἀνέπεσαν οἱ ἄνδρες τὸν ἀριθμὸν ase 
πεντακισχίλιοι (in number), cf. Isocr. big. 842; Aristot. pol. 2,8; 
Ptol. 4, 6, 84 (many others in Lob. Phryn. p. 364 sq. and Paralip. 
528), Jude 7 τὸν ὅμοιον τούτοις τρόπον ἐκπορνεύσασαι, Matt. xxiii. 
37 ὃν τρόπον ὄρνις ἐπισυνάγει, 2 Tim. iii. 8 (Plat. rep. 7, 517¢.; 

206 Plut. educ. 4,4; 9,18), Acts xviii. 3 σκηνοποιὸς τὴν τέχνην (Lucian. 
hel. asin.43; Agath.2,46'; Acta apocr. p.61)— it resembles most nearly 
the Passive construction under ὅ.1 This accusative, however, is 
very rare in the N. T.; even in Acts xviii. 3 the best Codd. [Sin. 
also] have τῇ τέχνῃ, cf. ὃ 31. On the other hand, a number of 
strictly adverbial Accusatives, which were probably very current 
in the language of conversation, have found their way into the 
244 N.T.; as, μακράν (afar), μάτην (in cassum), ἀκμήν (this moment) 
yet, τὴν ἀρχήν (Ino. Vili. 25), δωρεάν, τὸ τέλος (1 Pet. iii. 8), οἵ. 
§ 54,1. See, in general, Hm. Vig. p. 882sq. To the same class of 
constructions belong also parenthetic phrases, such as Rom. xii. 18 
εἰ δυνατόν, τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν, μετὰ πάντων ἀνθρώπων εἰρηνεύοντες, ix. ὃ 


(i. 15) Heb. ii. 17; v. 1; Rom. xv. 17; Mtth. 184: Mdv. 86 ἢ. 


How the Ace. of quality coincides with the Dative has already been 
noticed. Thus τῷ ἀριθμῷ is used for τὸν ἀριθμόν. Usually, however, we 
find the Acc. in classic Greek where in the N. T. the Dative is employed ; 
e.g. τὸ γένος Leelee Xen. Cyr. 4, 6, 2; Herod. 1, 8,2; D.S.1, 4; Arrian. 
Al. 1, 27, 8 and τῷ γένει Mark vii. 26; Acts iv. 86 (Palaeph. 6,2; 11, 2), 
ἐκλύεσθαι τῇ ψυχῇ Heb. xii. 3 and τὴν ψυχήν Diod. S. 20, 1, βραδεῖς τῇ 
καρδίᾳ Luke xxiv. 25, but βραδὺς τὸν νοῦν Dion. H. de Lys. p. 243 Lips. 


1 On the Hebrew cf. Ewald 591 f. 


§ 32, ACCUSATIVE. 231 


See Krii. 15; Lob. Paralip. 528 (Wetst. N.T. I. 826). In Demosth. ep. 
4p. 118 Ὁ. we find θρασὺς τῷ Biw and μὴ πολίτης τὴν φύσιν side by 
side. For τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον even Greek prose authors more frequently 
employ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον. 

Very extraordinary. is the expression ὁδὸν θαλάσσης in Matt. iv. 15 
(from Isaiah) which is rendered by the way. Passages such as 1 Sam. vi. 9 
εἰ ὁδὸν ὁρίων αὐτῆς πορεύσεται (Wunder on Lob. Sophocl. Aj. 41 f.) Num. 
xxi. 33; Exod. xiii. 17 (cf. Luke ii. 44), do not authenticate that Acc. 
without government (by a verb), in an address containing Vocatives. 
Such a construction would quite exceed the limits of prose composition 
(Bhdy. 114 4). What Thiersch p. 145 sq. remarks, is not decisive. Should 
we perhaps read of ὁδὸν θαλάσσης (οἰκοῦντες), with the Sept.? It is difficult 
to maintain with Mey. that εἶδε in verse 16 is the governing verb. The 
topographical difficulties of the usual interpretation are not invincible ; 
only we must not, as in the prophet, take πέραν τοῦ “Iopdavov as an in- 217 
dependent clause, as that would not apply to this passage in Matthew. Τα, 


T. In some passages the Accusative is said to be used absolutely, 
when on closer examination the grammatical reason for the Acc. 
can be discovered in the structure of the sentence. Thus in Rom. 
Vill. ὃ τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου.... ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν πέμψας 
... κατέκρινε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν is properly equivalent to τὸ ἀδύν. τοῦ 
νόμου ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός, πέμψας ... καὶ κατακρίνων etc. (where 
ἀδύνατον does not require to be taken in a passive sense) ; this, 
however, may also be a Nominative put at the commencement 
(cf. Wisd. xvi. 17). In Acts xxvi. 3 the Acc. yoorny ὄντα is 
undoubtedly to be explained as an anacoluthon, which, when 207 
participles are annexed, is of frequent occurrence ; see ὃ 63, I. 2a, Mie 
Schwarz, de soloec. p. 94 sq., has adduced nothing altogether of the 245 
same kind. In Luke xxiv. 46f. ἔδει παθεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν... καὶ 
κηρυχθῆναι ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ μετάνοιαν... a ρξάμενον ἀπὸ 
“Ἱερουσαλήμ, the Acc. (in the construction of the Acc. with the 
Infinitive) is in itself grammatically clear; only the reference of 
ἀρξάμενον is loose: beginning (viz. the κηρύσσων, Or, imperson- 
ally, that τέ should be begun; cf. Her. 3,91. See besides Kypke 
1. 344sq. In Rev. i. 20 the Aces. depend on γράψον verse 19, 
as has long been admitted. Lastly, in Rev. xxi. 17 ἐμέτρησε τὸ 
τεῖχος τῆς πόλεως ἑκατὸν τεσσαρ. πηχῶν, μέτρον ἀνθρώπου etc., 
the last words are a loose apposition to the clause ἐμέτρ. TO τεῖχος 
etc.; cf. Mtth. 916. Further, cf. Matthiae, Eurip. Med. p. 501 ; 
Hartung, S. 54; Wannowski, Syntax. anom. p. 128 sqq. On an 
Acc. in apposition to a whole clause, as Rom. xii. 1, see § 59, 9. 


232 § 38, CONNECTION OF A VERB (NEUTER) 


33. CONNECTION OF A VERB (NEUTER) WITH ITS DEPENDENT 
NOUN BY MEANS OF PREPOSITIONS. 


A considerable number of verbs, particularly such as denote an 
affection or a tendency of the mind, are connected with their 
predicate by means of a preposition. In this respect the diction 
of the N. T. sometimes accords with classic usage, and sometimes - 
displays more of a Hebrew and Oriental tinge. We arrange the 
verbs in question as follows : 

a. Verbs of rejoicing or grieving, which in Greek authors are 
frequently construed with the Dative alone (Fr. Rom. III. 78 sq.), 
take for the most part the preposition ἐπί with the Dat. (cf. Wurm, 
Dinarch. p. 40 sq.), as yatpew Matt. xviii. 18; Luke i. 14; Acts 
xv. 81; 1 Cor. xiii. 6; Rev. xi. 10 (cf. Xen. C.8,4,12; D.S.19, 
55; Isocr. permut. 738 ; Arrian. Ind. 35, 8), εὐφραίνεσθαι Rev. 
xviii. 20 (Keclus. xvi. 1; 1 Mace. xi. 44; Xen. conv. 7, 5), συλ- 
λυπεῖσθαι Mark iii. 5 (Xen. Mem. 3, 9, 8; οἵ, χαλεπῶς φέρειν ἐπί 

218 τινι Xen. H. 7, 4, 21) ; but sometimes also ἐν (λυπεῖν ἐν Jacobs, 
Tthed Achill. Tat. p. 814), as χαίρειν Luke x. 20; Phil. i. 18 (Col. i. 24. 
ef. Soph. Trach. 1119), εὐφραίνεσθαι Acts vii. 41, ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι 1 Pet. 
i. 6 (but ἀγάλλεσθαι ἐπί Xen. Mem. 2, 6, 35; 3, 5, 16). 
τ ΟΥ̓ verbs of being angry, ἀγανακτεῖν is construed with περέ (to be 
246 angry on account of some one) Matt. xx. 24; Mark x. 41; but (like 
ἀγανακτεῖν ἐπί Lucian. abdic. 9; Aphthon. progymn. ὁ. 9 p. 267) 
ὀργίζεσθαι ἐπί τινι Rey. xii. 17; cf. Joseph. bell. jud. 3, 9, 8 Gin the 
Sept. even ὀργίζεσθαι ἔν τινε Judg. ii. 14, in later Greek writers 
ὀργίζεσθαι κατά τινος as Malal. p. 48, 102, 165, etc.). The opposite, 
εὐδοκεῖν, is construed, in imitation of the Hebrew 3 yen and after 
the example of the Sept., with ἐν (to have pleasure in), whether 
used in reference to persons Matt. iii. 17; Luke iii. 22; 1 Cor. x. ὃ 
or things 2 Cor. xii. 10; 2 Thess. ii. 12 (θέλειν ἐν Col. ii. 18 cf. 1 Sam. 
xviii. 22?) ; in classic Greek the Dative alone would be sufficient. 
208 ’Apxetc Oat, which usually takes a Dative (Lukeiii.14; Heb. xiii.5), 
6th el. is once, 8 Jno. 10, construed with ἐπί. , 

b. Verbs denoting wonder, amazement, take ἐπί with the Dative ; 
so θαυμάζειν Mark xii. 17; Luke xx. 26, ἐκπλήσσεσθαι Matt. xxii. 
83; Mark i. 22; xi. 18; Luke iv. 832; Acts xiii. 12, which is also 
very common in Greek authors. Oavydfew περί τινος Luke ii. 18 
(Isaeus 8, 28 cf. Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 244) or even διά τι on 
account of something Mark vi. 6, as Aelian. 12,6; 14, 36 θαυμάζειν 
τινὰ διά τι. But θαυμάζειν ἐν τῷ χρονίζειν Luke i. 21 may mean 


WITH ITS DEPENDENT NOUN, ETC. _ 233 


during his tarrying; yet οἵ. Sir. xi. 21. On ξενίζεσθαί τινι see 
above, § 31, 1, f. p. 209. 

c. Of verbs signifying to pity, σπλαγχνίζεσθαι usually takes ἐπέ 
either with the Acc., Matt. xv. 82; Mark vi. 34; viii. 2; ix. 22, 
or with the Dat., Luke vii. 13 ; Matt. xiv. 14, only once Matt. ix. 36 
it takes περί ; but ἐλεεῖσθαι is used as a transitive, see ὃ 32,1,b.a. 

d. Verbs of relying on, trusting, hoping, boasting, are construed 
with ἐπί, ἐν, eis ; as, πέποιθα ἐπί τινι Mark x. 24; Luke xi. 22; 
2 Cor.i. 9 (Agath. 209, 5 ; 306, 20), ἐπί τὸ or teva Matt. xxvii. 43 ; 
2 Thess. iii. 4, with ἐν Phil. iii. 3; πιστεύειν ἐπί τινι Rom. ix. 33 ; 
1 Pet. ii. 6 Sept. (on πιστεύειν εἰς or ἐπί twa believe on one, see 
above, ὃ 31, 5), ἐλπίζειν ἐπί with Dat. Rom. xv. 12; Phil. iv. 10. 
(Pol. 1, 82, 6) and with Acc. 1 Tim. v.5; 1 Mace. ii. 61, εἰς : Jno. 
v. 45; 2 Cor. i. 10; 1 Pet. iii. 5; Ecclus. ii. 9 (Herod. 1, 10,1; 
Joseph. bell. jud. 6, 5.1, ἡ εἴς τινα ἐλπίς Plut. Galba ο. 19), i 1 ὁ 
xv. 19 (Xen. C.1,4,25; Mem. 4,2, 28; Pol. 1,59,2 ἐλπίδα ἔχειν 
ἔν T.), καυχᾶσθαι ἐπί τινι Rom. v. 2 (Ps. xlviii. 7; Ecclus. xxx. 2; 
D. S. 16, 70, similarly σεμνύνεσθαι Diog. L. 2, 71; Isocr. big. p. 
840 and φυσιοῦσθαι Diog. L. 6, 24), more ΕΔ ἐν Rom. ii. 
17,23; v.3; 1 Cor. iii. 21; Gal. vi. 13 (Ps. exlix.5; Jer. ix. 23), 
but not κατά 2 Cor. xi. 18 see Mey. in loc., also not ὑπέρ 2 Cor. 
vii. 14 ef. ix. 2. 

6. Of verbs of sinning, offending against, ἁμαρτάνειν is connected 
by εἰς with the object sinned against, Matt. xviii. 21; Luke xvii. 4; 219 
1 Cor. vi. 18 etc., cf. Soph. Oed. ©. 972; Her. 1,138; Isocr. panath, ™ οἱ 
Ρ. 644; permut. p. 750 and Aegin. p. 920,934; Mr. Anton. 7,26; val 
Weitsten. 1. 443; on the other hand, ἁμαρτάν. πρός twa Joseph. 
antt. 14, 15, 2, περί twa Isocr. permut. 754 (ἁμαρτ. τινί 1 Sam. 
xiv. 33; 1 Kings viii. 31, 33; Judg. x. 10). 

f. The verbs ἀρέσκειν please, and φανῆναι appear (so and so), 
instead of the Dative of the person to whom something gives 
pleasure or appears (in such or such a light), are connected with 
the noun by the Hellenistic preposition ἐνωπίον ; as, Acts vi. 5 
ἤρεσεν ὁ λόγος ἐνώπιον παντὸς τοῦ πλήθους (Deut. i. 23), Luke 
xxiv. 11 ἐφάνησαν ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν ὡςεὶ λῆρος τὰ ῥήματα. In the 
Sept. ἀρέσκειν occurs also with ἐναντίον twos Num. xxxvi.6; Gen. 
xxxiv. 18; 1 Mace. vi. 60. 

g. Of verbs of seeing, βλέπειν is often construed with εἰς (intueri) 
_ Jno. xiii. 22; Acts iii. 4, which is not unknown to classic Greek 

also; see Wahl. 


There is properly speaking a redundancy when verbs of following are 
f 80 


934 § 84, ADJECTIVES. 


construed with the preposition μετά or σύν (cf. comitari ewm aliquo in Latin 
209 inscriptions), Rev. vi. 8; xiv. 13; see Wetst. N. T. 1. 717; Lob. Phryn. 
bth el. p. 854; Schaef. Dem. V. 590; Hm. Lucian. p. 178; Krii. 63. The phrase 
ἀκολουθῶ ὀπίσω τινός (πὸ) Matt. x. 38 (Isa. xlv. 14) is Hebraistic. 
Substantives derived from such verbs are in the same way connected 
with the object by means of prepositions; as, πίστις ἐν Χριστῷ Gall. iii. 26 ; 
Eph. i. 15 etc., παρουσία πρὸς ὑμᾶς Phil. i. 26, θλίψεις ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν Eph. iii. 13, 
ζῆλος ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ 2 Cor. vii. 7, see Fr. Rom. I. 195, 365 sq. 


§ 34, ADJECTIVES. 


1. Although the two sorts of nouns, substantive and adjective, 
are distinct from each other in thought, yet the latter (including 
participles) enter the sphere of substantives far more abundantly 
in Greek than, for instance, in Latin. This they do whether they 
have or have not the Article, and in every gender; sometimes 
owing to an original ellipsis, and sometimes without an ellipsis, 

248 by virtue of the Gender, whether masculine or neuter, peculiar to 
them (Krii. 2 f.) ; as, ἡ ἔρημος (γῆ), τῇ ἐπιούσῃ (ἡμέρᾳ), διοπετές 
(ἄγαλμαλ Actsxix. 35, τὸ σηρικόν (ὕφασμα ?) Rev. xviii. 12, ὁ σοφός, 
ὁ κλέπτων Eph. iv. 28, βασιλικός, ὁ ἄρχων, ἀλλότριοι strangers, κα- 
κοποιοί evil-doers, τὸ ἀγαθόν (τὸ πνευματικόν, ψυχικόν 1 Cor. xv.467). 


On adjectives which have become substantives by an ellipsis, see § 64. 
Among expressions relating to persons, as σοφός, ot σοφοί, the following 
are characteristic of the N.T.: ὃ πιστός the believer, πιστοί believers, ἅγιοι, 
ἐκλεκτοί, ἁμαρτωλοί Rom. xy. 31; xvi. 2; 1 Cor. vi. 2; 2 Cor. vi. 15; 1 Tim. 
i. 15; vy. 10; 2 Tim. ii. 10; Heb. xii. 3; Matt. xxiv. 22; so even with 
an attributive Adjective, Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 2 κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, or with a 

990 Gen. Rom. viii. 33 ἐκλεκτοὶ θεοῦ. In all these cases persons are indicated 

Ith ol. to whom the quality in question belongs; and there is no necessity for 
supplying ἄνθρωποι (or ἀδελφοί). Likewise where 6 ἀληθινός 1 Ino. v. 20 
is used of God, or 6 ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ Luke iv. 34 of Christ, or 6 πονηρός of 
the devil, there is no ellipsis of those substantives, but the notion is gram- 
matically complete: the True, the Holy One of God; and what individual 
is distinctively so called in Biblical diction, must be ascertained from 
other sources. 

2. Especially frequent and diversified are Neuters used substan- 
tively (Krii. 83). Many of these even regularly take the place of 
a substantive derivable (but not always actually existing) from the 
root: and this, not only in reference to things sensible, μέσον, ἔσχα- 
τον, μικρόν, βραχύ, ὀλίγον, φανερόν, κρυπτόν, ἔλαττον, ἄρσεν, etc., 
especially with a preposition (εἰς τὸ μέσον Mark iii. ὃ; Jno. xx. 19, 


884. ADJECTIVES. 235 


μετὰ μικρόν Matt. xxvi. 73, ἐν ὀλίγῳ Acts xxvi. 29, ἐν τῷ φανερῷ 
Matt. vi. 4, εἰς φανερόν Mark iv. 22), but also mental and abstract, 
particularly with a Gen. annexed, as Rom. ii. 4 τὸ χρηστὸν τ. θεοῦ 

(ἡ χρηστότης), Heb. vi. 17 τὸ ἀμετάθετον τῆς βουλῆς, Rom. viii. 8 ; 

ix. 22; 1 Cor. i. 25; 2 Cor. iv. 17 ; Phil. iii. 8 τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς 
γνώσεως, iv. 5 τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν. Instead of the Gen. another con- 
struction is selected in Rom. i. 1570 κατ᾽ ἐμὲ πρόθυμον (τὸ πρόθυμον 210 
purpose Eur. Iphig. 983). The Plurals of adjectives are regularly sted 
porianeipa; and denote whole classes of things (persons) ; as, τὰ 
ὁρατὰ κ. i asi Col. i. 16, ἐπουράνια and ἐπίγεια Jno. ili. 12; Phil. 

ii. 10, τὰ βαθέα Rev. ii. 24, ἀρχαῖα 2 Cor. v.17. Such caabatirodcs 
moreover, sometimes are made more specific by the context: thus, 
ἐπουράνια Jno. as above heavenly truths, Phil. ii. 10 heavenly beings, 
Eph. ii.6; iii. 10 heavenly places (i.q. οὐρανοί, cf. var. Eph. i. 20) 
ete. In Rom. i. 20 τὰ ἀόρατα τοῦ θεοῦ the Plural refers to the par- 
tition that follows, ἥ τε ἀΐδιος δύναμις καὶ θειότης, and Philippi has 249 
explained the word more correctly than Fr. (On Eph. vi. 12 wvev- 
ματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας, see Note 3.) 


The expression τὸ δοκίμιον τῆς πίστεως in 1 Pet.i.7 does not come under 
this head, as δοκίμιον of itself is a substantive, (no adjective δοκίμιος exists) ; 
further, compare on this passage and on Jas. i. 3, Fr. Priilim. 5. 44. In 
Rom. i. 19, too, τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ is not simply i.q. ἡ γνῶσις τ. 6., other- 
wise it would not be easy to see why Paul did not employ ἡ γνῶσις, so 
usual to him ; but the meaning is either what is known (to mankind) of 
God, or what is knowable (may be known) of (about) God. (In reference 
to the latter meaning of yvwords, which Thol. questioned, see Soph. Oed. 
R. 362; Hm. Plat. rep. 7, 517 b.; Arrian. Epict. 2, 20, 4, cf. Schulthess, 
theol. Annal. 1829, S. 976.) I prefer the former as the simpler. Paul 
is speaking of the objective knowledge, of the sum of that which is known 
of God (from what source see verse 20). This objective γνωστόν becomes 
subjective, in as far as φανερόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς. This shows, too, why Paul 
did not use 7 γνῶσις here. 

The preceding mode of expression, which flows quite simply from the 991 
nature of the Neuter, is not unknown to the Greeks. The later prose Tih ed 
authors in particular adopted it from the technical language of philosophy. 
At the same time, the examples collected by Georgi (Hierocrit. I. 39) 
must be carefully sifted. The following may serve as unquestionable 
parallels: Demosth. Phil. 1. p. 20a. τὸ τῶν θεῶν εὐμενές, and de fals. leg. 
p- 213 a. τὸ ἀσφαλὲς αὐτῆς, Thuc. 1, 68 τὸ πιστὸν τῆς πολιτείας, 2,71 τὸ 
ἀσθενὲς τῆς γνώμης, Galen. protrept. 2 τὸ τῆς τέχνης ἄστατον and τὸ τῆς 
βάσεως εὐμετακύλιστον, Heliod. 2, 15, 88 τὸ ὑπερβάλλον τῆς λύπης, Plat. 
Phaedr. 240 a.; Strabo 3, 168; Philostr. Ap. 7, 12; Ὁ. 5. 19, 55; Diog. 


236 § 34, ADJECTIVES. 


L. 9, 63. This construction with the participle is especially characteristic 
of 'Thuc. (and the Byzantines). Cf. Ellendt, Arrian. Al. 1. 253 ; Niebuhr, 
ind. ad Dexipp. Eunap. and Malch. An abstract noun and neuter adjectives 
in connection occur in Plutarch, Agis 20 ἡ πολλὴ εὐλάβεια καὶ τὸ πρᾷον καὶ 
φιλάνθρωπον. 


8. On the other hand, a notion which should naturally be ex- 
pressed by an adjective as an epithet,! is sometimes, by a change 
211 of construction, brought out by a substantive. Yet the N. T. is 
6th εὐ. by no means poor in adjectives ; it can show a considerable number 
which do not occur in the (early) Greek authors, and some of 
which have been formed by the apostles themselves (ἐπιούσιος, cap- 
250 κικός, πνευματικός, παρείςακτος, πύρινος, ἀκατάκριτος, ἀκρογωνιαῖος, 
ἀνεπαίσχυντος, αὐτοκατάκριτος, ἀχειροποίητος, βρώσιμος, ἐπυπόθητος, 
εὐπερίστατος, ἰσάγγελος, κατείδωλος, κυριακός, ταπεινόφρων etc. ). 

This substitution of a substantive for an adjective takes place, 

a. In such a way that the substantive which is the principal word 
stands in the Genitive: 1 Tim. vi. 17 μὴ ἠλπικέναι ἐπὶ πλούτου 
ἀδηλότητι not to trust in the uncertainty of riches i.e. in riches 
which are uncertain, Rom. vi. 4 ἵνα ἡμεῖς ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς wepiTa- 
τήσωμεν, Vii. 6. 

This form of expression, however, is not arbitrary, but is designed 
to give greater prominence to the main idea, which if expressed 
by an adjective would recede more into the background. It is 
rhetorical, therefore, not grammatical. Cf. Zumpt, Lat. Gramm. 8. 
554 and examples from Greek authors in Held, Plut. Timol. p. 368. 

Properly only those passages come under this head in which, to the 
substantive that is followed by a Genitive, a verb is joined which from 
the nature of the case suits rather the substantive in the Genitive, and 
consequently points it out as the principal noun (as, ingemuit corvi stupor, 


or the above ἐλπίζ. ἐπὶ πλούτου ἀδηλότητι). On the other hand, such pas- 
sages as the following are to be decidedly excluded from this class :? Col. 
ii. ὅ βλέπων τὸ στερέωμα τῆς πίστεως, 2 Cor. iv. 7 ἵνα ἡ ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμεως 
222 ἢ τοῦ θεοῦ, Gal. ii. 14 ὀρθοποδεῖν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, ii. 5, also 
Ith el. 2 Thess. ii. 11 πέμπει ἐνέργειαν πλάνης. In Heb. ix. 2 ἡ πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων 


1On the case in which an adjective as a predicate is expressed by means of a substan- 
tive for rhetorical reasons, as in 2 Cor. iii. 9 εἰ ἡ διακονία τῆς κατακρίσεως δόξα, see § 58. 

2 Fr, Rom. I. 367 sq. has objected to this separation, which however he appears to 
have misunderstood. In passages of the second kind the statement is merely logical, 
in those of the first it is rhetorical. When it is said, live according to the truth of the 
Gospel, we are to understand the words in their proper and natural meaning (the truth 
of the Gospel is the rule of life) ; but when itis said, corvi stupor ingemuit, the statement 
is figurative, like, his blood called for vengeance. Cie. N. D. 2, 50, 127 belongs to the 
second class, and foedo odore would be the less exact expression. 


§ 84, ADJECTIVES. 281 


signifies: the setting before, exposition, of the bread; and in 1 Pet. 1. 2 
ἁγιασμὸς πνεύματος, as a glance at the context will show, is not synonymous 
with πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Lastly, the phrase λαμβάνειν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύ- 
ματος in Acts ii. 33; Gal. iii. 14 means: obtain the promise of the Spirit, 
which happens when the promised blessing itself is received (κομίζεσθαι 
τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν), when the promise becomes fulfilment. 


b. Far more frequently so that the noun which expresses a quality 
(mostly moral) stands in the Genitive: Luke iv. 22 λόγοι τῆς 
χάριτος, Xvi. 8 οἰκονόμος τῆς ἀδικίας, Xvill. 6 κριτὴς τῆς ἀδικίας, 
Col. i. 13 υἱὸς τῆς ἀγάπης, Rev. xiii. 8 ἡ πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου mortal 
wound, Rom. i. 20 πάθη ἀτιμίας, 2 Ῥοί. 11. 10 ; Jas.i.25; Heb. 1. 8.1 
This, in prose, is a Hebraistic mode of expression, (and is to be 251 
attributed not merely to the want of adjectives in Hebrew, Ewald 212 
572, but to the peculiar vividness of the Oriental languages). *! # : 
In the more elevated style, however, there are instances of the same 
construction even_in Greek authors, see Erfurdt, Soph. Oed. R. 
826, cf. Pfochen, diatr. p. 29; but the examples in Georgi, Vind. 
p. 214 sqq. are nearly all useless.2 In later writers it intrudes into 
plain prose, Eustath. Gramm. p. 478. 


If in such expressions a Gen. of a personal pronoun be annexed, it is 
rendered as belonging to the entire idea ; as, Heb. i. ὃ τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως 
αὑτοῦ by his mighty word, Col. i. 13; Rev. iii. 10 ; xiii. 3. It is common* 
to go still further, and to assert (e.g. Vorst, Hebraism. p. 570.sq.; Storr, 
observ. p. 234 sq.) that when two nouns combined denote one principal 
notion, the demonstrative pronoun also, according to the Hebrew idiom (?), 
agrees grammatically with the governed noun ;* as, Acts v. 20 τὰ ῥήματα 223 
τῆς ζωῆς ταύτης for ταῦτα these words of life, xiii. 26 ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας Τὰ ed 
ταύτης this doctrine of salvation, Rom. vii. 24 ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου 


τούτου, cf, the Peschito |2asor Wor Ippo -τὸο. But this rule (which 


even Bengel has adopted) is imaginary. In Rom. vii. rovrov may have 
been construed with σώματος by Paul himself; but it is not without ap- 


1 But 2 Thess. i. 7 ἄγγελοι δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ are angels of his power, i.e. who serve his 
power. 

? The Genitive of material does not come under this head. The expression λίθου 
κριός e.g. was to the Greeks like our ram of stone, and it is only the Latin idiom that 
would require the use of the adjective here. Likewise ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας Phil. iv. 18 (ef. 
Aristot. rhet. 1, 11, 9) is probably fragrance of sweet odor, and not quite equivalent to 
εὐώδης. That 1 Cor. x. 16 τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας and Rom. i. 4 πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης 
are not to be explained by the above rule, is now admitted by the best expositors. 
For still more unsatisfactory examples, see Glass. I, 26 sq. 

® Some attempt to prove this to be a Hebraism by Ezra ix. 14 MN ΤΩ ΤΙ “ay3, 
where, however, there is no necessity whatever for construing ΠῸΝ with the second 
substantive. 


238 § 84, ADJECTIVES. 


propriate sense, if connected with θανάτου. As the apostle had already 
said much of θάνατος (verse 10 ff.), he might naturally refer to it; see 
de Wette in loc. Likewise in Acts xiii. σωτὴρ Ἰησοῦς had already been 
expressed in verse 23, and accordingly 6 λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας ταύτης means: 
the word of this (through Christ effected) salvation. In Acts y. the pronoun 
refers to the salvation which the apostles were then engaged in preaching. 
Even the Hebrew construction, as ᾿ΘῸΞ ">7>x Isa. ii. 20 or “wp yeu Ps. 
Ixxxix. 21, which, though according to the rule, is at the same time much | 
more natural as both words are properly one, has not been literally’ trans- 
lated so in the Sept. Cf. Isa. as above, τὰ βδελύγματα αὑτοῦ τὰ ἀργυρᾶ, 
252 Deut. i. 41 τὰ σκεύη τὰ πολεμικὰ αὐτοῦ, Ps. as above, ἐν ἐλαίῳ ἁγίῳ. In 
fact it is not easy to perceive, how Luke and Paul, in statements so simple, 
came to employ such an irregular construction. What Georgi, Vind. p. 
204 sqq., and Munthe, obs. Acts v. 20, quote from Greek authors, loses all 
plausibility when closely examined (Fr. Exc. 1. ad Mr. p. 771 sq.). | 
Note 1. The Hebraism (Gesen. Lehrgeb. 5. 661; Vorst, Heb. 282 sq.) 
213 according to which the Neuter of an adjective is expressed by its Feminine, 
6th ed. is said to occur in Luke xi. 88 εἰς κρυπτὴν τίθησι. Absurd! κρυπτή had 
already become a substantive, signifying a covered place or passage, a 
subterraneous receptacle, vault (Athen. 5, 205); and this meaning is quite 
appropriate in the passage. On the other hand, Matt. xxi. 42 (Mark 
xii. 11) παρὰ κυρίου ἐγένετο αὕτη (τοῦτο), καὶ ἐστὶ θαυμαστὴ (θαυμαστόν) 
is a quotation from Ps. exvii. 23; even the Sept., however, may have 
referred the Feminine to κεφαλὴ γωνίας (Wolf, cur. ad h. 1.). 
Note 2. We must here mention another Hebraistic (Vorst, Hebraism. 
467 sqq.) circumlocution (as it is called) for certain concrete adjectives 
when employed as substantives, viz. by the use of vids or τέκνον followed 
by a Genitive of the abstract; as, υἱοὶ ἀπειθείας Eph. ii. 2 i.e. the disobedient, 
υἱοὶ φωτός Luke xvi. 8; Jno. xii. 36, τέκνα φωτός Eph. v. 8, τέκνα ὀργῆς ii. 3, 
τέκνα ὑπακοῆς 1 Pet. i. 14, τέκνα κατάρας 2 Pet. ii. 14, 6 υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας 
2 Thess. ii. 3. Every one must feel that these expressions are not mere 
circumlocutions, but phrases which bring out the meaning with greater 
vivacity and force. This phraseology is traceable to the vivid imagination 
of Orientals, which even in the realm of ideas represents the most intimate 
224 relationship (derivation or dependence) under the image of son or child 
ith el. (Ecclus.iv.11). Children of disobedience, therefore, are those who belong 
to ἀπείθεια as a child to its mother—those in whom disobedience has 
become predominant and a second nature (compare in Hebrew, Deut. 
iii. 18; xxv. 2; 2 Sam. xii. 5; Ps. lxxxix. 23). (The expressions παῖδες 
ἰατρῶν, δυστήνων ---- especially in Lucian — Schaef. Dion. 313, grammatically 
rather resemble υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Παῖς or τέκνον joined to an abstract 
noun, as in the preceding quotations, neither Schwarz nor Georgi has been 
able to vindicate by any passage from Greek prose. For an instance 
from ecclesiastical authors, see Epiphan. Opp. I. 880 Ὁ. οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς ἀληθινῆς 


§ 35, COMPARATIVE. 239 


πίστεως. Strictly similar phraseology is not to be expected in modern 
European languages; child of death, for instance, is derived from the 
diction of the Bible. In the more elevated style, however, a few such 
expressions are used: every one ts the offspring of his age. See, in 
general, Steiger on 1 Pet. as above; Gurlitt in Stud. ἃ. Kritik. 1829, 
5. 728f. Of a different nature is 2 Thess. ii. 3 6 ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας ---- 
not i.g. 6 ἁμαρτωλός ---- the man of sin, that is, he who peculiarly belongs 
to sin, the representative of sin, its personification.) 

Note 8. In Eph. vi. 12 the expression τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας is 
peculiar. The Greek idiom to which expositors here refer (see Koppe 
in loc.; Fischer, Weller. III. I. 295), παρθενικοί for παρθένοι (Lob. Paralip. 
305 sq.), was in the better period merely poetical, and is not quite analogous. 
In the Byzantines, however, we find e.g. ἡ ἱππική for ἡ ἵππος (Ducas, p. 18) ; 
and (τὰ) δαιμόνια, which was originally an adjective but which in later 
Greek is used substantively along with δαίμονες, affords in the main a 
proper analogy. A Genitive joined to it e.g. τὰ δαιμόνια τοῦ ἀέρος would 
present no difficulty. But in the above passage of Eph. the abstract 
appears to have been purposely chosen as a contrast to πρὸς αἷμα καὶ 
σάρκα : your struggle is not against outward but against spiritual adver- 


253 


saries. If, however, any one is unwilling to take πνευματικά for πνεύματα, 214 
it can only be regarded as a collective Plural, like τὰ λῃστρικά in Polyaen. 6th ed 


5, 14 (robber-hordes, from τὸ λῃστρικόν the robber class or profession) 


Lob. Phryn. 242, and rendered: the haat pa of wickedness, wicked Ὁ 


~ spiritual powers; see Mey. in loc. 


§ 35. COMPARATIVE! 


1. Degrees of Comparison are expressed exactly as in classical 
Greek; that is, by means of the appropriate form of the adjective, 
that with which the comparison is made being subjoined in the 


Genitive, or, especially when it is a whole clause,? connected by #: 225 
Jno. iv. 12 μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν ; i. 51; xiii. 16; Mark Me 


xii. 831; 1Cor.i. 25; 1 Tim. v. 8; Heb. xi. 26 ; Jno. iv. 1 πλείονας 
μαθητὰς ποιεῖ ἢ ᾿Ιωάννης, 1 Cor. xiv. 5; 1 Jno. iv. 4; Rom. xiii. 11 
ἐγγύτερον ἡμῶν ἡ σωτηρία ἢ ὅτε ἐπιστεύσαμεν, 2 Pet. ii. 21; 1 Cor. 
ix. 15; Klotz, Devar. 583. After πλείων or ἐλάττων before ἃ 
numeral, ἤ is often omitted (Mtth. 1019); so in Acts xxiv. 11 οὐ 
πλείους εἰσί μοι ἡμέραι δεκαδύο, iv. 22 ; xxiii. 13; xxv. 6; cf. Ter. Ad. 
2, 1, 46 plus quingentos colaphos infregit mihi. See Lob. Phryn. 
410 sq.; Held, Plut. Aem. p. 261. The contrary in Luke ix. 13. 
1 Cf. in general G.W. Nitzsch de comparativis graecae linguae modis, in his edition 


of Plat. Ion. Lips. 1822, 8vo. 
? In such a case we find in the Sept. the Genitive of the Infinitive also, Gen. iy. 13. 


254 


215 
6th ed. 


226 
τὰ ed. 


240 § 35. COMPARATIVE. 


It is sometimes doubtful whether the Genitive following a Comparative 
contains the second member of the comparison, or is altogether independent 
of the comparison. In Heb. iii. 3 πλείονα τιμὴν ἔχει τοῦ οἴκου ete. it 
is probably most correct to take οἴκου in the former way ; but 1 Cor. xiii. 13 
μείζων τούτων ἡ ἀγάπη may be rendered: (greater) the greatest (07) among 
these is love; see No.8. Cf. besides, 1 Cor. xii. 23; Luke vii. 42 (Lucian. 
fug. 6). ᾿ 

The Comparative is strengthened by annexing μᾶλλον, 2 Cor. vii. 18 
περισσοτέρως μᾶλλον (Plato, legg. 6,781 a.), Phil.i.23 πολλῷ μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον 
(much more better), and in reference to another comparison, Mark vii. 36 
ὅσον αὐτοῖς διεστέλλετο, αὐτοὶ μᾶλλον περισσότερον ἐκήρυσσον, see Fr. in loc.; 
also by ἔτι Heb. vii. 15 περισσότερον ἔτι κατάδηλον (still more evident), Phil. 
i. 9; lastly, by πολύ, as 2 Cor. viii. 22 πολὺ σπουδαιότερον. All these are 
very common in Greek authors (Krii. 79): on μᾶλλον see Wyttenb. Plut. 
I. 238 ; Ast, Plat. Phaedr. p. 395; legg. p. 44; Boisson. Aristaen. p. 430 sqq. 
(in Lat. ef. Cic. Pis. 14 mihi... quaevis fuga potivs quam ulla provincia 
esset optatior) ; as to ἔτι cf. Plat. pol. 298 6. ; Xen. M. 1, 5, 6; Cyr. 5, 4, 
20; Anab. 1, 9,10, and as to πολύ Xen. M. 2, 10, 2; Lucian. Tim. 50. 
In Greek authors sometimes ére πολύ are conjoined: Xen. M. 2, 1, 27; 
C. 1, 6,17; Anab. 7, 5, 15. 

Also when prepositions are employed after the Comparative they are 
designed to give it additional force ; as, Luke xvi. 8 φρονιμώτερον ὑπὲρ 
τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ φωτός, Heb. iv. 12; Judg. xi. 25; xv. 2; xviii. 26; Heb. ix. 23 
κρείττοσι θυσίαις παρὰ ταύτας, i. 4; iii. 35; xi. 4; xii. 24; Luke iii. 18. 
Compare, in reference to παρά, Thuc. 1. 23 πυκνότερον παρὰ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ πρὶν 
χρόνου μνημονευόμενα, Dio C. 38, 97. See Hm. Vig. 862. 


2. Instead of the Comparative form, the Positive is used, 

a. With μᾶλλον, partly when the Comparative form seemed 
uncouth, partly when more emphasis was required (Krii. 78), Acts 
Xx. 35 μακάριόν ἐστι μᾶλλον διδόναι ἢ λαμβάνειν, 1 Cor. xii. 22; 
Gal. iv. 27. / 

b. With a preposition following which contains the notion of 
comparison ; as, Philostr. Apol. iii. 19 παρὰ πάντας ’Ayatous μέγας. 
So Luke xiii. 2 ἁμαρτωλοὶ παρὰ πάντας τοὺς Γαλιλαίους (though 
apap., to be sure, has no comparative), Heb. iii. 3. In the Sept. 
mapa and ὑπέρ are often thus used: Exod. xviii. 11; Num. xii. 3; 
Hagg. ii. 9; Eccl. iv. 9; ix.4; 1 Sam. i. 8. 

c. With ἤ following; as, Aristot. probl. 29, 6 παρακαταθήκην 


1 Μᾶλλον is not joined to the Superlative, and in 2 Cor. xii. 9 ἥδιστα οὖν μᾶλλον 
καυχήσομαι ἐν ταῖς ἀσθενείαις μου, the word μᾶλλον belongs to the whole expression 
ἥδιστα καυχ. etc., rather, then, will I glory most gladly, ete., i.e. than, repining, beseech 
God to remove the ἄσθεν. (verse 8f.). The word ἥδιστα indicates the degree of καυχᾶσθαι, 
while μᾶλλον forms the antithesis to what precedes. 


§ 385. COMPARATIVE, A: Sas 


αἰσχρὸν ἀποστερῆσαι μικρὸν ἢ πολὺ δανεισάμενον (Held, Plut.Timol. 
817sq.). This, on the whole, is of rare oceurrence; but the 
analogous βούλομαι or θέχω ἤ, malle, became a current phrase, 255 
Her. 3. 40; Polyb. 13, 5,3; Plut. Alex. 7; Sulla 3. This usage 
may be most simply explained by supposing that ἤ (owing to the 
Comparative construction) had come to be regarded as a pro- 
portional particle, presupposing, or to a certain extent directly 
expressing, ἃ comparison ;! cf. Plaut. rud. 4,4, 70 tacita bona est 
mulier semper quam loquens, Tac. ann. 3, 17. 

Now, in the N. T. we find not merely θέλω ἤ 1 Cor. xiv. 19 and 
λυσιτελεῖ ἤ satius est quam Luke xvii. 2 (Tob. iii. 6), but, as in 
Greek authors (Lys. affect. tyr. 1), this use of ἤ is extended to 
other connections; as, Luke xv. 7 χαρὰ ἔσται ἐπὶ ἑνὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ 
μετανοοῦντι. ἢ ἐπὶ ἐνενηκονταεννέω δικαίοις greater joy than etc., cf. 
Num. xxii. 6 ἐσχύει οὗτος ἢ ἡμεῖς. With adjectives we find only a 
single example, but in both relations, Matt. xviii. 8 καλόν σοί ἐστιν 
εἰςξελθεῖν εἰς τὴν ζωὴν χωλὸν ἢ κυλλόν, ἢ δύο χεῖρας ... ἔχοντα 
βληθῆναι ete. Mark ix. 48, 45. On the other hand, this construc- 
tion is of frequent occurrence in the Sept., Gen. xlix.12; Hos. ii. 7; 
Jon. iv. 3,8; Lam. iv.9; Tob. xii. 8; Ecclus. xxii. 15, and there 
it was suggested by the Hebrew, which also makes the comparison 
follow the adjective in the preposition ya. In Greek authors com- 216 
pare with Luke xvii. (above) ζῆν ἀταράχως συμφέρει ἢ τὸ τρυφᾶν δὲ εἰ. 
etc. Aesop. 121 de Fur. (Tob. vi. 13), in Adject. and Ady. Thue. 

6, 21 αἰσχρὸν βιασθέντας ἀπελθεῖν ἢ ὕστερον ἐπιμεταπέμπεσθαι, 
Plut. Pelop. 4 τούτους ἂν ὀρθῶς κ. δικαίως προςαγορεύσεις συνάρχοντας 
᾿ἢ ἐκείνους, Aesop. 134 de Fur. 8:66 d’Orville, Char. p. 538; Boisson. 
“Marini Procl. p. 78; Kypke I. 89; II. 228 and Nitsch lc. p. 71. 


Luke xviii. 14 with the reading κατέβη οὗτος δεδικαιωμένος ... ἢ ἐκεῖνος, 
would according to the preceding idiom be free from difficulty ; cf. Gen. 
XXXvili. 26 δεδικαίωται Θάμαρ ἢ ἐγώ (only a comparison is not quite suitable 
here). All the better Codd., however, read ἢ γάρ (see also Matthiii, small 
ed., in loc.), which is without a parallel. Yet on Hermann’s theory 
(followed also by Bornem. in loc.) the passage may be perhaps resolved 
thus: this one went away justified ... or (went) then the other etc.? The 
γάρ must have been annexed, as elsewhere to interrogative words (also to 
ἦ, e.g. Xen. C. 8, 3, 40; Soph. Electr. 1212 8), for emphasis. Probably 997 
the reading in some Codd. ἤπερ (which in Jno. xii. 43 does not differ from ἤ) Th ed. 


1 The explanation given by Hermann, Vig. 884 and Schaef. ind. Aesop. p. 138, ef. 
Held, Piut. Tim. p. 317, is more artificial. The earlier grammarians supplied μᾶλλον 
before the Positive. 

81 


Pees) “SAS ty. α,...." 
Ἷ : ἀν. 


242 8 85. COMPARATIVE. 


256 is rather a correction of ἢ γάρ than the origin of it. Lchm., Taf. in his 
first edition, and Mey. read παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον [so too Cod. Sin.], which would be 
quite free from difficulty (justified beyond i.e. to the neglect of the other). 


3. The Comparative places over against the object compared but 
one thing as comparable, whether this one thing be an individual 
or a complex whole ; as, Jno. xiii. 16 οὐκ ἔστι δοῦλος μείζων τοῦ 
κυρίου, V. 20 μείζονα τούτων δείξει αὐτῷ ἔργα, κ. 29. If the Genitive 
annexed denotes al/ things of the same kind, as Mark iv. 31 μικρό- 
TEpos πάντων TOV σπερμάτων, Verse 32; Luke xxi. 3; 1 Cor. xv.19; 
Eph. iii. 8, it is to be understood of course with the exception of 
the thing compared: smaller than all (other) seeds; and the Com- 
parative may be rendered also by the Superlative : the smallest of 
all seeds. This mode of expression occurs also in Greek authors : 
Demosth. falsa leg. 246 b. πάντων τῶν ἄλλων χείρω πολίτην, Athen. 
3, 247 πάντων καρπῶν ὠφελιμώτερα, Dio Chr. 3, 89 ἁπάντων πιθα- 
νώτερος, see Jacobs, Anthol. III. 247. 


In 1 Cor. xiii. 13 μείζων τούτων ἡ ἀγάπη the Comparative is not put for 
the Superlative; but the meaning is: the greater of (among) these ts love, 
and the Comparative is employed because the other two graces were re- 
garded as forming but a single class in contrast with love. 


4. The Comparative is not unfrequently used when the object 
of comparison is not expressly mentioned ; Reiz, de accent. inelin. 
p. 54; Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 418, 538; Stallb. Phileb. p. 120 and rep. 

1, 238; Mtth. 1021 f.; Krii. 77. 
In such cases this may ordinarily be gathered easily from the 
context, Jno. xix. 11; Acts xviii. 20; 1 Cor. vii. 88 (cf. vs. 86 f.) 
xii. 81; Heb. ii. 1; vi. 16; ix.11; Jas. iii.1; 1 Pet. iii. 7; or the 
expression has become a current phrase, as οἱ πλείονες the majority 
217 (in an assembly), Acts xix.32; xxvii. 12; 1 Cor.ix.19,etc. But 
ihe. sometimes the peculiar force of the Comparative recedes still 
farther from view; in such passages earlier expositors regarded 
the Comparative as put for the Positive! or Superlative: 2 Tim. 
i. 18 βέλτιον σὺ γινώσκεις thou knowest better, sc. than 1 (Lucian. 
pise. 20 ἄμεινον od οἶσθα ταῦτα); Acts xxv. 10 ὡς καὶ σὺ κάλλιον 
ἐπιγινώσκεις, better than thou art willing to appear to know it 
257 (according to the supposition in verse 9 of his being guilty) ; 2 Cor. 
viii. 17 τὴν μὲν παράκλησιν ἐδέξατο, σπουδαιότερος δὲ ὑπάρχων more 
1In Greek authors also the Comparative is not used for the Positive in sentences 
like Lucian. epp. Sat. 3,32 τὸ ἥδιστον καὶ συμποτικώτερον καὶ ἰσοτιμία, etc., or 


11 ὃς ἂν μεγαλοφωνότερος αὐτῶν ἦν καὶ θρασύτερος, Her. 2, 46 ete. (HZeusing. Plut. 
educ. p. 3). Cf. also Heinichen, Euseb. H. E. 1. 210sq.; Herm. Lucian. conser. hist. p. 284. 





§ 35. COMPARATIVE. 243 


eager sc. than to require an exhortation ; vii. T ὥςτε με μᾶλλον 
χαρῆναι more sc. than for the (mere) arrival of Titus (verse 6), 228 
ef. verse 13; Acts xxvii. 13 ἄσσον παρελέγοντο τὴν Κρήτην nearer Thee 
sc. than (verse 8) it had been possible ; Phil. ii. 28 σπουδαιοτέρως 
ἔπεμψα αὐτόν sc. than I should have done, had you not been made 
uneasy by the news of his illness (verse 26) ; i. 12 τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ μᾶλλον 
εἰς προκοπὴν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐλήλυθεν more (rather) for the advance- 
ment sc. than, as we feared, for the hinderance; Jno. xiii. 27 ὃ 
ποιεῖς ποίησον τάχιον More quickly than thou seemest disposed to 

do, hasten the execution, see Liicke in loc. (Senec. Agamn. 965 
citius interea mihi edissere, ubi sit gnatus, cf. ocius Virg. Aen. 8, 
554). In 1 Tim. iii. 14 τάχιον (ἐλπίζων ἐλθεῖν πρός σε τάχιον) is 
generally rendered as the Positive (ἐν τάχει Lehm. is ἃ cor- 
rection), while some take it as equivalent to ὡς τάχιστα. The 
gneaning is: 1 write this to thee, hoping (though I hope) to come 

to thee more quickly, sooner i.e. than thou wilt need these instruc- 
tions. The reason of his writing notwithstanding, is contained in 

ἐὰν δὲ Bpadvve etc., cf. verse 15. Heb. xiii. 19 that I may be re- 
stored to you sooner (than would be the case without your prayers) ;! 
xiii. 23 if he come sooner (than the date of my departure) ; Rom. 

xv. 15 τολμηρότερον ἔγραψα ὑμῖν more boldly (frankly) sc. than, from 
your Christian attainment (verse 14), was necessary. On Mark 

ix. 42 see Fr.inloc. Acts xviii. 26 does not require explanation. 

In 1 Cor. vii. 38 the relation between the Positive καλῶς ποιεῖ and 

the Comparative κρεῖσσον ποιεῖ is plain from verse 36 f. Likewise 
περισσοτέρως, so much used by Paul, never occurs without a com- 
parison. Its comparative force is obvious in 2 Cor. i. 12; ii. 4; 
vii. 13 ; xi. 23; Phil. i. 14; Gal. i. 14; Heb. ii. 1; vi. 17; but in 

1 Thess. ii. 17 περίσσ. ἐσπουδάσαμεν τὸ πρόςωπον ὑμῶν ἰδεῖν οἷο., 

the ground of the comparison lies probably in the clause: ἀπορφα- 
νισθέντες ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν πρὸς καιρὸν ὥρας. The being deprived of their 
personal intercourse for a time (which Paul calls being bereaved), 
had made his desire stronger than it would have been had he sus- 
tained no such relation to them. In 2 Pet. i. 19 the comparative 218 ᾿ 
force of βεβαιότερον can be determined only on hermeneutical ™ δ. 
grounds; but the discordance even of the most recent expositors, 
shows how occult the reference here is. On the other hand, there 
ean be little doubt that in 2 Pet. ii. 11 after μείζονες “ than those 258 
τολμηταὶ αὐθάδεις ᾿᾿ ought to be supplied. On Eph. iv. 9 see Mey. 





1 Béhme, who expresses the meaning of the passage correctly in his translation, affirms 
nevertheless in his comments : non est comparat. stricte intelligendus. 





244 § 35. COMPARATIVE. 


Acts xvii. 21 λέγειν τι καὶ ἀκούειν καινότερον is peculiarly characteristic. 

The Comparative indicates that they desired to hear something newer (than 

even what was deemed new), and is well fitted to portray the thirst of 

the Athenians after news. Generally, however, the Greeks employed the 

Comparative (usually νεώτερον) in asking the news; thus denoting not 

merely something new (Positive), but something still more fresh than what 

229 had, up to that moment, been news; Her. 1, 27; Eurip. Orest. 1327 ; 

ith el. Aristoph. av. 254; Theophr. ch. 8,1; Lucian. asin. 41; D. Sic. Exe. Vat. 
p- 24; Plat. Protag. 310 Ὁ. and Euthyphr. c. 1, see Stallb. in loe. 

In Matt. xviii. 1 (Mark ix. 34; Luke ix. 46; xxii. 24) τῶν ἄλλων at 
once suggests itself as the ellipsis (μέγιστος would have implied three grades 
of four evenamong the Twelve ; Ramshorn, lat. Gr. 316). In the same 
way, in Matt. xi. 11 ὁ δὲ μικρότερος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τ. οὗρ., that is, 6 μικρότερος 
(τῶν) ἄλλων (the Comparative appears to be chosen here as corresponding 
to the preceding μείζων), cf. Diog. L. 6,5 ἐρωτηθεὶς τί μακαριώτερον ἐν 
ἀνθρώποις, ἔφη, εὐτυχοῦντα ἀποθανεῖν, Bauer, glossar. Theod. 455; Boisson. 
Philostr. 491. Other expositors after μικρότερος understand Ἰωάννου τοῦ 
βαπτιστοῦ ; see, in general, Mey. Likewise in Acts xvii. 22 κατὰ πάντα 
ὡς δεισιδαιμονεστέρους ὑμᾶς θεωρῶ the particle os does not appear to 
belong to the Comparative as an intensive, but the passage must be ren- 
dered: In all respects (at every step, as it were) I behold you as more 
religious people (than others are, sc. ἄλλων: the Athenians as is well 
known were reputed to be such; see the expositors in loc.). The word 
θεωρῶ was designedly chosen, compare verse 23; and θεωρεῖν ὡς, though 
unusual, can hardly be considered as improper. 

Note 1. When it is asserted that πρῶτος is used for the Comparative 
(πρότερος) where only two are spoken of e.g. Rev. xxi. 1 εἶδον οὐρανὸν καινὸν 
... ὃ γὰρ πρῶτος οὐρανός etc. prius coelum, Heb. x. 9 ἀναιρεῖ τὸ πρῶτον, 
ἵνα τὸ δεύτερον στήσῃ, Matt. xxi. 86 ἀπέστειλεν ἄλλους δούλους πλείονας τῶν 
πρώτων, Actsi.1; 1 Cor. xiv. 30, the assertion is true only from a Latin 
point of view, for the Greeks are accustomed, even when there is a distinct 
reference to two only, to employ πρῶτος, δεύτερος, not πρότερος, ὕστερος 
(cf. Jacobs, Aclian. anim. II. 88), just as with us the former, the latter 
belong rather to the language of books than to that of the people. Like- 
wise πρῶτος with the Genitive, as in Jno. i. 15, 30 πρῶτός pov (cf. Ael. 
anim. 8, 12), and the Adverb xv. 18 πρῶτον ὑμῶν, is properly not prior me, 
prius vobis ; but the Superlative merely includes the Comparative, as is 
remarked by Hm. on Eurip. Med. ed. Elmsley, p. 343: Graecos ibi super- 
lativum pro compar. dicere, ubi haee duo simul indicare volunt, et maius 
219 quid esse alio et omnino maximum. Cf. also Fr. Rom. 11. 421, not. It 
δι οἱ, ἐς. an entire mistake when in Luke ii. 2 αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο 
259 ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Kupyviov, even recent expositors take πρώτη for 

προτέρα and make the Genitive ἥγεμον. ete. dependent on this Comparative: 
took place before Q. was governor. On this view Luke’s language is not 


§ 35. COMPARATIVE. 945 





only ambiguous (for the rendering: this took place as the first under the 
administration of Q. presents itself as the most obvious and natural), but 
also awkward if not ungrammatical. And Huschke (iiber ἃ. zur Zeit ἃ. 
Geburt J. Chr. gehalt. Census. Bresl. 1840, 8vo.) has not succeeded in 
adducing a really similar construction ; he merely proves (what everybody 
admits) that πρῶτος is followed by the Genitive of a noun. The error of 
Tholuck (Glaubwiirdigk. ἃ. evang. Geschichte, 5. 184) in regarding Jer. 230 
xxix. 2 in the Sept. as parallel, has been exposed by Fr., as above. Tih ed 

Note 2. Two Comparatives which are correlative, as in Rom. ix. 12 6 
μείζων δουλεύσει τῷ ἐλάσσονι (Sept.), cf. 1 Cor. xii. 22; 2 Cor. xii. 15; Phil. 

i, 23 sq., or joined with a word expressing proportion, as in Heb. i. 4 τοσούτῳ 
κρείττων γενόμενος ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα (xX. 25), require 
no explanation. Cf. Xen. C. 7, ὅ, 7; Mem. 1, 4,10; Plato, Apol. 39 ἃ. 

In the N.T. no instance occurs of two Comparatives connected by ἤ 
(Krii. 77). On the other hand, we find Positives with μᾶλλον in 2 Tim. ὁ 
iii. 4 φιλήδονοι μᾶλλον ἢ φιλόθεοι. a 

5. Sometimes, in comparative sentences, a part is compared not 
with the corresponding part but with the whole (Bhdy. 432) ; as, 
Jno. vy. 36 μαρτυρίαν μείζω τοῦ ᾿Ιωάννου, witness greater than John, 
that is, greater than that of John; so Her. 2, 134 πυραμίδα καὶ 
οὗτος ἀπελείπετο πολλὸν ἐλάσσω τοῦ πατρός, i.e. than that of his 
father ; and Lucian. salt. 78 τὰ δ ὀμμάτων φαινόμενα πιστότερα 
εἶναι τῶν ὦὥτων δοκεῖ. There is here no proper ellipsis (as the 
earlier philologists supposed) ; for had the speaker’s thought coin- 
cided exactly with ours, he would have said τῆς τοῦ ᾽].. τῆς τοῦ 
πατρός, etc. Rather must we regard the construction in question 
as a condensed form of expression quite in accordance with the 
genius of the Greek language, and of frequent occurrence, not 
merely with strict Comparatives (Hm. Vig. 717; Schaef. Melet. 
127 ; Mtth. 1016), but also in other comparative sentences ; Franke, 
Demosth. p. 90; Weber, Demosth. p. 399; Fr. Conjectan. I. 1 sqq. 
and Mr. p. 147, see ὃ 63. In Latin, cf. Juven. 3,74 sermo promptus 
et Isaeo torrentior, Cic.ad Brut. 1,12; Orat. 1,44, and in Hebrew, 260 
Isa. lvi. 5 (1 Esdr. iii. 5). Matt. v. 20 ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ ὑμῶν ἡ 
δικαιοσύνη πλεῖον τῶν γραμματέων ete. may also be explained in 
this way without violence ; (Jesus could speak of a δικαίοσ. γραμμ., 
for their conduct assumed for itself this title of honor, and was 
looked up to and esteemed by the people as mnprx). On the other 
hand, 1 Cor i. 25 τὸ μωρὸν τοῦ θεοῦ σοφώτερον τῶν ἀνθρώπων, is 


κα δ οὐ ἐῶ νυ ὁ. ee ee λα ee ὗς 


- 
ἴω. 


ee eS ee Ὲ ὙΦΡᾺΝ (τῇ ἌΡ ΚΤν κ εν 





ae. “- 


ee 


1 Only when several such parallel clauses follow each other is the Article omitted in 
the last ; as, Plat. Gorg. 455. 4 τῶν λιμένων κατασκευὴ ἐκ τῆς Θεμιστοκλέους ξυμβουλῇς 
γέγονε, τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ τῆς Περικλέους, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ dx τῶν δημιουργῶν. Cf. Siebelis, Pausan. IV. 291. 


ΝΟ eee 
χὰ “ἘΞ ; 
oh 


246 § 36. SUPERLATIVE. 


220 easily accounted for without the usual (but forced) solution (Pott, 

sth el. Heydenreich, Flatt, in loc.) : the foolishness of God is wiser than 
men (are); that is, what appears foolishness in God’s arrange- 
ments isnot only wisdom, but is even wiser than men, outshines 
all the wisdom of men. 


231 § 36. SUPERLATIVE. 
ith ed, ‘ 

1. Instead of the Superlative, we find, in elevated style, one 
instance of the Positive accompanied by a generic substantive: 
Luke i. 42 εὐλογημένη od ἐν γυναιξίν, blessed (art) thou among 
women. This is primarily a Hebrew idiom (Gesen. Lg. 692) which 
strictly means: Among women thou art the (only) one that can 
be called blessed, the blessedness of others cannot be compared to 
thine ; hence, with rhetorical emphasis, highly blessed. This is not 
without parallel in Greek poetry (though the passages adduced 
by Kuhnél are not appropriate); as, Eurip. Alcest. 473 ὦ φίλα 
γυναικῶν (ὦ φιλτάτα) see Monk in loc., Aristoph. ran. 1081 ὦ σχέτλι᾽ 
ἀνδρῶν, still more Pind. Nem. 3, 80 (140) αἰετὸς ὠκὺς ἐν πετανοῖς, 
cf. also Himer. orat. 15, 4 of γενναῖοι τῶν πόνων, and Jacobs, Ael. 
anim. I. 400. The case is different in Matt. xxii. 86 ποία ἐντολὴ 
μεγάλη ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ; which kind of commandment is great in the law ? 
so that others seem insignificant in comparison, —not precisely the 
greatest, see BCrus. in loc. Likewise in Luke x. 42 τὴν ἀγαθὴν 
μερίδα ἐξελέξατο, the Positive is not put for the Superlative ; the 
meaning is: She has chosen the good part (in reference to the 
kingdom of heaven; that which alone truly deserves this name) ; 
Fr. Conject. I. 19 is in error. Matt. v.19 ὃς δ᾽ ἂν ποιήσῃ ... 
οὗτος μέγας κληθήσεται will be called great, a great one, not ex- 
261 actly the greatest (opposed to ἐλάχιστος which precedes.) Cf. Hm. 

Aeschyl. p. 214. 

2. Of the well-known Hebrew mode of expressing the Super- 
lative, peitp wap, ovtas 732, only the following examples occur in 
the N. T.: Heb. ix. 3 ἡ (λεγομένη) ἅγια ἁγίων the most holy place 
(which, however, as it had already assumed the character of a 
standing designation, scarcely comes under this head), Rev. xix. 16 
βασιλεὺς βασιλέων, κύριος κυρίων, the highest king, lord, 1 Tim. vi. 
15. But none of these expressions is a pure Hebraism; in the 
Greek poets also we find such a doubling of adjectives (used sub- 
stantively): Soph. Electr. 849 δειλαία δειλαίων, Oed. R. 466 ἄῤῥητ᾽ 
ἀῤῥήτων, Soph. Phil. 65, κακὰ κακῶν Soph. Oed. C. 1238, see 


§ 36, SUPERLATIVE. 247 


“-ἰ 


Bhdy. 154; Wex, Antig. I. 316. The phrase βασιλεὺς βασιλέων 
too, is very simple, and more emphatic than ὁ μέγιστος βασιλεύς ; 
ef. Aeschyl. suppl. 524 ἄναξ ἀνάκτων, and, even as a technical 
designation, Theophan. contin. 127, 387 ὁ ἄρχων τῶν ἀρχόντων. 
See also Hm. Aesch. p. 230; Georgi, vind. 327 and Nova Biblioth. 
Lubee. 11. 111 sq. In reference to the kindred expression οἱ αἰῶνες 
τῶν αἰώνων, see the passages in the concordance. 

3. What were formerly adduced! as Hebraistic circumlocutions 
for the Superlative, are for the most part either, 

a. Figurative expressions which appear in all languages (and 
the explanation of which in the present comes under the depart- 
ment of N. T. Rhetoric); e.g. Heb. iv. 12 ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ τομώτε- 
pos ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαιραν δίστομον, Matt. xvii. 20 ἐὰν ἔχητε πίστιν 
ὡς κόκκον σινάπεως the least faith, iv. 16 καθημένοις ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ 
σκιᾷ θανάτου in the darkest shadow. Cf. Matt. xxviii. 3; Rev. i. 
14; xviii. 5. Or, 

b. Constructions which have nothing to do with the Superlative ; 
as, Col. ii. 19 αὔξησις τοῦ θεοῦ not a divine, i.e. extraordinary, 
increase, but God’s increase, i.e. not merely acceptable to God, but 
produced by God (cf. 1 Cor. iii. 6); 2 Cor. i. 12 ἐν ἁπλότητι καὶ 
εἰλικρινείᾳ θεοῦ not perfect sincerity, but sincerity which God 
effects, produces ; Jas. v.11 τέλος κυρίου not glorious end, but the 
end which the Lord reserved (for Job); Rev. xxi. 11 πόλις ἔχουσα 
τὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ not great glory, but simply and strictly the 
glory (splendor) of God; see Ewald in loc.; 1 Thess. iv. 16 σάλπυγξ 
θεοῦ not great or far-sounding trumpet (σάλπιγξ φωνῆς μεγάλης 
Matt. xxiv. 31), but trumpet of God, i.e. trumpet which sownds at 
God’s command, or less restrictedly (as it is without the Article) a 
trumpet as used in the service of God (in heaven) ; so also Rev. 
xv. 2 κιθάραι tod θεοῦ harps of God, as they sound in heaven (to 


the praise of God), ef. 1 Chron. xvi. 42. 


In Rom. i. 16 δύναμες θεοῦ means, as expositors have long been 
agreed, the power of God (power in which God works); and there 


3 See, especially, Pasor, Grammat. p. 298sq. The Hebrew mode of expression 
aia 5513 is used likewise by the later Greek poets ; see Boisson. Nic. Eugen. p. 134, 
383. Cf. Sept. σφόδρα σφόδρα Exod. i. 12; Judith iv. 2. On the Rosetta inscription 
19 we find μέγας καὶ μέγας. Essentially the same is the expression (μικρὸν) ὅσον ὅσον 
Heb. x. 37 a very little while (Hm. Vig. 726), literally, little how very, how very! In 
Greek authors it occurs with a substantive annexed, as in Aristoph. vesp. 213 ὅσον ὅσον 
στίλην as big (that is, as small) as a drop; hence it is used precisely like quantillum. 
The simple ὅσον occurs also with a limiting genitive in Arrian. Indic. 29, 15 σπείρουσιν 
ὅσον τῆς χώρης. The passages adduced by Wetst. and Lésner as parallel do not establish 
ὅσον ὅσον, but merely the simple μικρὸν ὅσον. On the other hand, ef. Isa. xxvi. 20. 


221 
6th ed. 


932 
Tih ed. 


262 


248 § 37. NUMERALS. 


is no ground for charging Bengel with having intended by his 
“magna et gloriosa” to countenance the Hebraism in question. 
He merely gives prominence, in his way, to two qualities which a 
virtus det will exhibit, — referring to 2 Cor. x. 4. Lastly, ἀστεῖος 
τῷ θεῷ Acts vii. 20, used in reference to Moses, does not express 
the Superlative, so much as intensity rather ; it is to be translated 
Jair for (before, in the judgment of) God, that is, to be sure, 
admodum formosus (cf. 2 Cor. x. 4 and Sturz, Zonarae glossae 
sacrae P. II. Grimmae, 1820, 4to. p. 12sqq.). In Hebrew on xd 
and nin} "25> are used in precisely the same manner (Gesen. Lg. 

233 695), ef. Gen. x. 9; Jon. iii. 3 (Sept. πόλις μεγάλη τῷ θεῷ). See 

ith ed. Fischer, proluss. 231 sqq.; Wolle, de usu et abusu αὐξήσεως nomi- 

oF num divinor. sacrae, in his comment. de parenthesi sacra, p. 143 Sq. 5 
but the use of the Dative is not, in itself, to be esteemed a Hebraism, 
ef. Heind. Plat. Soph. 836; Ast, Plat. lege. p. 479 a. 


Haab (S. 162) is quite mistaken in maintaining that even the word 
Χριστός, annexed to a substantive, merely gives intensity to its signification, 
e.g. Rom. ix. 1 ; 2 Cor. xi. 10 ἀλήθεια Χριστοῦ, ἐν Χριστῷ the most unques- 
tionable truth. So other expositors would understand Col. ii. 18 θρησκεία 
τῶν ἀγγέλων as cultus perfectissimus ; cf. 2 Sam. xiv. 20 σοφία ἀγγέλου. 

Note. The strengthening of the Superlative by πάντων (Weber, Demosth. 
p- 548) occurs in the N. T. only in Mark xii. 28 πρώτη πάντων, cf. Aristoph. 
av. 473. 


263 § 37. NUMERALS. 


1. In expressing the day of the week, efs-is always used for the 
ordinal numeral πρῶτος, as Matt. xxviii. 1 εἰς μέαν τῶν σαββάτων, 
Mark xvi. 2 πρωὶ τῆς μεᾶς σαββάτων, Luke xxiv. 1; Jno. xx. 1, 
19; Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2. The passages which have been 
quoted as analogous from Greek authors, merely prove that εἷς is 
used of the first member in divisions and enumerations ( Weber, 
Demosth. p. 161), when δεύτερος or ἄλλος, or the like, follows ; as, 
Her. 4,161; Thue. 4,115; Herod. 6, 5, 2sqq. (Georgi, vindic. 
54sqq.).! In this case εἷς no more stands for πρῶτος than in 
Latin unus, when followed by alter, tertius, etc., stands for primus 
(cf. also Rev. ix. 12 with xi. 14 and Gal. iv. 24). In the quota- 
tion from Her. 7, 11, 8 εἷς retains its proper signification, wnus, 
and probably also in Paus. 7, 20, 1, where Sylb. renders it by una. 

1 Also Foertsch, observ. in Lysiam p. 37, has been able to adduce only passages of this 


kind. On Diog. L. 8, 20 see Lobeck, Aglaopham. p. 429. 
2 Chishull, antiq. asiat. p. 159, translates μιᾷ τῆς βουλῆς : die concilii prima. 


oe - 


§ 37. NUMERALS. 249 


The preceding use of the numeral is Hebraistic (Ewald, krit. Gr, 


. 496; on the Talmud, see Wetsten. I. 544; in the Sept. cf. Exod. 


xl. 2; Num. i. 1,18; Ezra x. 16f.; 2 Mace. xv. 86) and has in 
classical Greek a parallel in compound numerals ; as, εἷς καὶ τριηκο- 
στός (Her. 5, 89) one and thirtieth. We, too, use in like manner 
the cardinal numeral in giving the year, page, etc. mainly for 
brevity’s sake, as in the year eighteen, page forty, ete. 

For the cardinal one the Singular of a substantive is sometimes used 
alone; as, Acts xviii. 11 ἐκάθισεν ἐνιαυτὸν καὶ μῆνας ἕξ (Joseph. antt. 
15, 2, 3), Rev. xii. 14 τρέφεται ἐκεῖ καιρόν (but Jas. iv. 13). This, how- 234 
ever, is not an ellipsis (cf. § 26, 1), as the number one is implied in the ‘thed 
Singular. A similar usage is found in all languages. 


2. In 2 Pet. ii. 5 we find an abbreviated use of the ordinal; 223 
ὄγδοον Νῶε... ἐφύλαξε Noah as eighth, 1.6. with seven others, ‘the 
In the same way Plat. legg. 3. 695 ο. λαβὼν τὴν ἀρχὴν ἕβδομος, 
Plutarch. Pelop. ¢. 13 εἰς οἰκίαν δωδέκατος κατελθών, Appian. 
Pun. p. 12 (2 Mace. v. 27), cf. also Schaef. Plutarch. V. δῖ and 
Demosth. I. 812. Greek authors usually add αὐτός ; see Kypke 264 
Il. 442; Mtth. 1037. 

3. Cardinals when repeated assume a distributive signification ; 
as, Mark vi. 7 δύο δύο ἤρξατο ἀποστέλλειν, binos misit, in pairs, 
two and two. Instead of this the Greeks say κατά or ava δύο (Krii. 
75); the latter! occurs, for instance, in Luke x. 1, and in Mark as 
above in Cod. D as acorrection. This repetition is properly He- 
braistic (see Gesen. Lg. 703; οἵ, Gen. vii. 8, 9, and thence Leo, 
Gramm. p. 11), and the simplest form of expressing distribution, 
ef. Lob. pathol. p. 184. Yet solitary instances of a similar usage 
occur in Greek (poetry), e.g. Aeschyl. Pers. 981 μυρία μυρία, i.e. 
κατὰ μυριάδας ; and the combination in Mark vi. 39, 40 ἐπέταξεν 
αὐτοῖς dvakNivat πάντας συμπόσια συμπόσια .. . ἀνέπεσον 
πρασιαὶ πρασιαί is analogous. 


The following expressions are singular: ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστος Rev. xxi. 21 
and εἷς καθ᾽ εἷς (or καθεῖς) Mark xiv. 19; Jno. viii. 9 (like & καθ᾽ ἕν), ὃ 
καθ᾽ εἷς Rom. xii. 5 (3 Mace. ν. 34), for which Greek authors, preserving 
the regimen, use καθ᾽ ἕνα (1 Cor. xiv. 31; Eph. v. 33). Yet compare ἀνὰ 
τέσσαρες Plut. Aem. 32 (see, however, Held), εἷς καθεῖς (Bekker writes 
καθείς) Cedren. 11. 698, 723, εἷς zap’ εἷς Leo, Tact. 7,83 and simply καθεῖς 
Theophan. contin. p. 39 and 101, and other quotations from late writers in 


1 For this ἀνά the Syriac version always employs the repeated numeral, e.g. Mark vi. 


40 ἀνὰ ἑκατόν \LSolbSo . —heoue ΠΣ On the other hand, we find in 
Act. apocryph. 92 ἀνὰ δύο δύο. 
32 


250 § 87, NUMERALS. 


Wetst. I. 627, also Intpt. ad Lucian. Soloec. 9. In these phrases the prep: 
osition serves merely as an adverb; Hm. de partic. ἄν p.5sq. “A different 
view is taken by Déderlein, Pr. de brachylogia serm. gr. et lat. (Heslang, 
1831, 4to.) p. 10. 


4, The well-known rule, that in combinations of numbers καί 
is commonly inserted when the smaller number precedes, but 
omitted when the greater precedes (Mtth. 339; cf. the Inscript. in 
Chishull, antiq. asiat. p. 69 sq.) ef. 1 Cor. x. 8; Jno. vi. 19; Acts 

“ὦ ὄ 1, 15; vii. 145 xxvii. 387; Rev. iv. 4; xix. 4,1 ought not, partic- 

235 aay the latter part of it (Schoem. ad Isaeum 332; Krii. 14). to 

ith ed be taken too strictly ; for there are exceptions to it everywhere, in 
the N. T. at least several undoubted ones: Jno. ii. 20 τεσσαράκοντα 
καὶ ἕξ ἔτεσιν (without var.), v.5 τριάκοντα καὶ ὀκτὼ ἔτη (according 
to preponderating authority), Gal. 111. 17 ; Luke xiii. 11, 16 ; Acts 
xiii. 20; Rev. xi. 2. Similar instances again and again occur in 
Greek authors ; as, Her. 8, 1 εἴκοσι καὶ ἑπτά, Thue. 1, 29 ἑβδομή- 

224 κοντα καὶ πέντε, Dion. Hal. IV. 2090 ὀγδοήκοντα καὶ τρεῖς. In Sept. 

hel. cf. 1 Kings ix.28; xv. 10, 33; xvi. 23,28; Gen. xi. 13 (in Judg. 

265 x. 4 Tdf. has given in one verse, τριάκοντα καὶ δύο viol and τριά- 
κοντα δύο πώλους). 

5. When ἐπάνω is joined to a cardinal to denote above, more than, 
the cardinal does not stand in the Genitive after ἐπάνω, but is put 
in the case which the verb of the sentence requires ; as, Mark xiv. 
5 πραθῆναι ἐπάνω τριακοσίων δηναρίων, 1 Cor. xv. 6 ὥφθη ἐπάνω 
πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς. Precisely so (without a case) the Greeks use 
ἔλαττον Plato, legg. 9, 856 d. μὴ ἔλαττον δέκα ἔτη γεγονότας (Thue. 
6, 95), πλέον (Paus. 8, 21, 1), περί (Zosim. 2, 30), εἰς or és (Appian. 
civil. 2,96, but compare Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. 68), μέχρι (Aeschin. 
fals. leg. 37 ed. Bremi), ὑπέρ (Plut. virt. mul. 208, Lips. ; Jos. antt. 
18,1,5); see Lob. Phryn. 410sq.; Gieseler in Rosenmiiller’s Repert. 
II. 139 ff. ; Sommer in the allg. Schulzeit. 1831, S. 963. Latin 
constructions such as occisis ad hominum millibus quatuor, Caes. 
b. gall. 2, 33, from the historians, are well enough known. 


Note 1. That the Neuters δεύτερον, τρίτον, etc., signify also the second 
time, the third time, etc., it is superfluous to remark. ‘They are sometimes 
accompanied by τοῦτο, as τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι 2 Cor. xiii. 1 this ts the 
third time I come, or, now I am coming for the third time, cf. Her. 5, 76 
τέταρτον τοῦτο. 


Note 2. For the numeral adverb ἑπτάκις we find the cardinal in Matt. 


ὑ- 


1 Three numerals are sometimes found thus combined ; as, Rev. vii. 4 ἑκατὸν τεσσαρά-᾿ 
~ κοντα τέσσαρες Xiv. 3; xxi. 17; Jno. xxi. 11 ἐκ. πεντήκοντα τρεῖς. 








§ 88, ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 251 


xviii. 22 in the formula ἕως ἑβδομηκοντάκις ἑπτά seventy times seven (times), 
compare in Sept. Gen. iv. 24 and 224 Ps. exix. 164 (for nvay2 228) Ewald 
498. Taken strictly it means: seventy times (and) seven, that is, seventy- 
seven times; but this would not suit the passage. Moreover, that ἕως is 
not to be joined to ἑπτά but to ἑβδομηκ., appears from the preceding ἕως 
ἑπτάκις. (How variously numeral adverbs are expressed in the Sept. may 
be seen from the following passages: Exod. xxxiv. 23; Deut. xvi. 163 
2 Kings vi. 10; Neh. vi. 4; 2 Sam. xix. 43.) 





CHAPTER IV. οὐξ 
Tth ed. 
THE VERB. 266 


§38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 


1. As on the one hand the Active voice of transitive verbs not 
infrequently assumes also an intransitive (apparently reflexive) 
signification, so on the other many intransitive verbs have become 225 
transitives (causatives) ;— 6th od 

Sometimes in consequence of composition, as διαβαίνειν Heb. xi. 
29, παρέρχεσθαι Luke xi. 42 ; and sometimes by simple adaptation, 
as μαθητεύειν twa! Matt. xxviii. 19 (θριαμβεύειν twa 2 Cor. ii. 
147%), βασιλεύειν twa 1 Sam. viii. 22; 1 Kings i. 43; Isa. vii. 6; 
1 Mace. viii. 13 (Lob. Soph. Aj. 385). See § 32, 1, pp. 221 sqq. 

Those transitive verbs which are frequently or even generally 
employed as intransitive, are restricted to certain classes of mean- 
ings that may be easily gathered from the following examples: 
ἄγειν (ἄγωμεν let us go), παράγειν Matt. xx. 30; 1 Cor. vii. 31, 
περιάγειν Acts xili. 11, βάλλειν Acts xxvii. 14 (precipitate itself, 
rush), ἐπιβάλλειν Mark iv. 37 (beat into), ἀποῤῥίπτειν Acts xxvii. 43 
(throw themselves off), «Aivew Luke ix. 12 (incline itself, decline), 
ἐκκλίνειν Rom. xvi. 17, ἀνατέλλειν, βλαστάνειν, αὐξάνειν (Lob. 
Soph. Aj. p. 89 sq. 382 sqq.), στρέφειν Acts vii. 42, ἀναστρέφειν 
Acts v. 22 (return), and especially ἐπιστρέφειν ; ἐκτρέπειν, παρα- 
διδόναι Mark iv. 29; 1 Pet. ii. 23 (commit, consign one’s self), 
ἀπέχειν be at a distance, ἐπέχειν Acts xix. 22 (hold one’s self 
back, i.e. stay), ὑπερέχειν, σπεύδειν. In the N.T. ἀνακάμπτειν, 
προκόπτειν are only intransitive. In all these cases (which are 


1 Here belongs also xpostdrrew τινά to commission one, Acta apocr. p. 172. 


952 § 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 


for the most part verbs of motion) the Greeks considered nothing 
as omitted (not even ἑαυτόν), but the verb denotes the action 
absolutely: he plunges, Germ. stiirzt, into the sea, he turns ; where, 
however, as no object is mentioned, the reader can only refer the 
action back to the subject. See, in general, Bos, Ellips. p. 127 sqq.; 
Mtth. 1100 ff. ; Bhdy. 339 f.; Kri. 184 f.; Poppo, Thue. I. 186; 
Fr. Mr. p. 138. On διδόναι and its compounds in particular, see 
Jacobs, Philostr. p. 863, and on παρέχειν Ast, Plat. polit. Ρ. 470 ; 
Wyttenb. Plut. mor. 1, 405. 


267 Jno. xiii. 2 τοῦ διαβόλου βεβληκότος εἰς τὴν καρδίαν must not be referred 
to this head, whether the received reading or that adopted by Lchm. and 
Tdf. be followed; βάλλειν has in any case an Active signification; see 
Kypke. 

237 Many verbs have some of their tenses transitive (causative), and some 

Mh ol. intransitive. So ἵστημι with its compounds (Bttm. II. 207), of which it 
is sufficient to remark, that the Ist Aor. Pass. σταθῆναι Mark iii. 24 and 
the Ist. Fut. σταθήσομαι Matt. xii. 25, 46 share the intransitive meaning 
stand, and that in Acts xxvii. 28 the Ist Aor. διαστήσαντες [after which 
ναῦν or ἑαυτούς is not with Bttm. (Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 41.) 
to be supplied] signifies stood off; (cf. Malal. 2 p.35 στήσας for rds). In 
Heb. xii. 15 Sept. φύειν even in the Pres. is intransitive (Iliad. 6, 149). 

In 1 Pet. ii. 6 περιέχει ἐν τῇ γραφῇ 18 contained (stands) in the Scripture, 
περιέχει appears to have rather a passive than an intransitive signification ; 
cf. Joseph. antt. 11, 4,7; Malal. 9, 216; 18, 449; see Krebs, observ. 198. 

On the impersonal use of certain verbs (in 3d pers. Sing.), as βροντᾷ, 
λέγει, φησί, see ὃ 58, 9, p. 522. 


226 2. The Middle Voice (of transitive verbs)? refers back the action 
bik ed. to the acting subject, either 


1 See L. Kiister, de vero usu verborum medior. ap. Graecos, and J. Clerici, diss. de 
verbis Graecor. mediis, both reprinted in the work of Dresig, to which we refer below. 
Hm. emend. rat. p. 178 ; Bhdy. 342 ff. ; Rost, 562 ff. ; Krii. 140 ff. are more philosophic. 
Especially cf. Poppo, Progr. de Graecor. verbis mediis, passivis, deponentibus rite dis- 
cernendis. Fref. a. V. 1827, 4to., and Mehlhorn’s critique on it in Jahn’s Jahrb. 1831, 1. 
14 ff.; Sommer in Jahn’s Jahrb. 1831, ΤΙ. 36 ff.; J. H. Kistemaker, de origine ac vi verbor. 
depon. et medior. gr. ling. in the Classical Journal No. 44 (Dec. 1820), No. 45 (March 
1821). A monograph on this subject in reference to the N. T. is, S. ¥. Dresigit com- 
mentar. de verbis med. N. T. nunc prim. editus cura J. F’. Fischeri. Lips. (1755) 1762, 
8vo. On the whole, however, scholars have hitherto represented too many verbs as 
middle ; a great many such verbs, on account of the constant use of their Aorist Passive, 
may be fairly regarded as passive, since in Greek as well as in Latin the passive may 
be used as reflexive. Thus in κινέομαι, ἔγείρομαι, διακονεῖσθαι, ἁγνίζεσθαι, μεθύσκεσθαι, 
δογματίζεσθαι (Col. ii. 20), ἀτιμάζεσθαι Fr. (Rom. I. 72), συσχηματίζεσθαι, the thought 
is undoubtedly passive, not middle, as moveri etc. in Latin. Under this head come 
still more appropriately ὀρέγεσθαι (appetitu ferri), βόσκεσθαι pasci, ete.; also αἰσχύνεσθαι. 
Compare, in general, Ros¢’s preface to the third edition of his Greek Dictionary, p. 9 sq 
and his Gramm. p. 270. Sommer, as above. 


- ia Δ eee ee ΡΨ 


§ 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 253 


a. Simply as the immediate object, as λούομαι I wash myself, 
κρύπτομαι I conceal myself Ino. viii. 59, ἀπάγχομαι I hang myself 
Matt. xxvii. δ, παρασκευάζομαι 1 Cor. xiv. ὃ ; 1 or, 

b. Mediately, in case the action is done ἐ0 or in any way Jor the 268 
subject ; as, ἐξαγοράζομαι I buy for mysel/, προέχομαι I hold before 
myself (Fr. Rom. 1.171), νέπτομαι tas χεῖρας I wash for myself the 
hands, my hands Mark vii. 8, σπάομαι τὴν μάχαιραν Χὶν. 47, εἰςκα- 
λοῦμαι Acts x. 23 I call in to myself, ἀπωθέομαι I push away for 238 
myself (from me). Compare besides περυποιεῖσθαι, κομίζεσθαι, me 
καταρτίζεσθαι, ἐπικαλεῖσθαι (θεόν) Fr. Rom. II. 403, and the 
following passages: Matt. vi.17; Luke vi. 7; x. 11; Acts v. 2f.; 

ix. 89; xviii. 18; xix. 24; xxv. 11; Gal. iv. 10; 1 Pet v. 5; 
2 Thess. iii. 14; Heb. x. 5. 

Sometimes a verb is used in the Active voice of material, and in 
the Middle of mental objects; as, καταλαμβάνειν to seize, κατα- 
λαμβάνεσθαι to comprehend, ἀνατιθέναι put up, ἀνατίθεσθαι to pro- 
pound ; probably also διαβεβαιοῦσθαι 1 Tim. i. 7; Tit. iii. 8; cf. 
Aristot. rhet. 2, 13. On προβλέπεσθαι see below, 6, p. 258. 

At other times a new signification grows out of the Middle, as 
πείθομαι I persuade myself i.e. obey, ἀπολύομαι solvo me i.e. discedo, 
παύομαι I cease, φυλάσσομαί τινα I guard one in reference to myself 
i.e. 1 beware of him ;? thoroughly transitive are παραωιτοῦμαί τι 
(I deprecate something in my own behalf) I decline, αἱροῦμαι 1 227 
take for myself, I choose, ἀπειπάμην τι I renounced 2 Cor. iv. 2, a 
ἐκτρέπομαί τι 1 Tim. vi. 20, ἀποδίδομαί τι (1 give away something 
Srom myself) I sell something, ἀποκρίνομαι (1 give out a decision 
Srom myself ) I answer, ἐπικαλοῦμαι καίσαρα Acts xxv. 11 (1 call 
upon the emperor in my behalf) I appeal to. So λυτρόω properly 


1 What verbs regularly express this reflexive meaning by the Middle must be learned 
from observation. In many (we should rather say in most, see Rost 563), the reflexive 
sense is never expressed by the Middle, but by the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτόν etc. sub- 
joined, see Bitm. 122, 3, Thus in Matt. viii. 4 δεικνύειν ἑαυτόν is used to denote show 
himself, cf. Her. 3, 119; ἀποκτείνειν ἑαυτόν is always employed to express Kill himself’ 
(Jno. viii. 22); cf. further, Jno. xxi. 18; 1 Cor. iii. 18; 2 Thess ii. 4; 1 Jno. i. 8 (in 
contrast with a passive Matt. xxiii. 12; 1 Cor. xi. 31, or an active Luke ix. 25; xxiii. 
35), see Kiister, de verb. med. p. 56. Lexicographers should no longer defer an accu- 
rate investigation of the subject. See also Poppo. as above, p. 2, note; Krii. 146. 

5 Φυλάσσεσθαι as a Middle means also sibi (aliquid) custodire (Heind. Plat. Gorg. 
p- 323), and was used of that which one retains in his mind, by Hesiod. op. 263, 561. 
On the other hand, in the sense of (legem) sibi observare, as in Luke xviii. 21 according 
to the reading of several Codd. (ταῦτα πάντα ἐφυλαξάμην ἐκ vedrnros), it probably 
does not oceur in classical Greek, but frequently in the Sept. Yet in Luke xviii.,21 
the better reading [sustained by Cod. Sin. also] is ἐφύλαξα. 


254). § 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 


means I liberate, acting as master; but λυτροῦμαι I liberate for 
myself another’s captive, Luke xxiv. 21. 


When such Middle verb is construed with the accusative of any thing 
or quality belonging to the subject, the pronoun is sometimes in the N. T. 
added to the substantive ; as, Matt. xv. 2 οὐ νίπτονται τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν, 
Rom. ix. 17 ὅπως ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν δύναμίν pov (in Greek authors 
ἐπιδείκνυμαι is often so used, Engelhardt, Plat. Lach. p. 9; Schoem. ad 

269 Plutarch. Agid. p. 144), Acts vii. 58 ἀπέθεντο τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν (where Tdf. 
without sufficient authority omits the pronoun), Heb. vi. 17; Eph. ii. 7; 
1 Pet. iv. 19. In.such instances the pronoun is redundant, and Greek 
authors usually dispense with it, which the N. T. writers also frequently 
do, as in Acts ix. 89; Mark vii. 3; xiv. 47. 

By the usage under Ὁ. is likewise 2 Cor. iii. 18 ἡμεῖς πάντες ... τὴν δόξαν 
κυρίου κατοπτριζόμενοι to be explained: as it were sbi intueri, beholding 
(for ourselves) the glory of the Lord (as in a mirror), like Philo II. 107. 
In Rom. iii. 25 ὃν προέθετο ὃ θεὸς ete., recent expositors have likewise — 
taken notice of the Middle; yet Philippi seems to have reached the true 
exposition more nearly than Fr. 


3. Finally, c. the Middle frequently denotes an action that takes 

place by order or with the permission of the subject, —a relation 
239 expressed in German by the auxiliary verb (sich) lassen, and in 
ith οἱ, Latin usually. by cwrare (cf. Sommer in Seebode, krit. Biblioth. 
1828, II. 733); as, ἀδικεῖσθαι to allow one’s self to be wronged, 
and ἀποστερεῖσθαι to allow one’s self to be robbed (both in 1 Cor. 

vi. 7), ἀπογράφεσθαι to allow one’s self to be registered, get enrolled 
Luke ii. 1. Cf. further βαπτίζεσθαι, γαμεῖσθαι, and many others. 
Examples of Middle verbs that in this case, too, assume a new 
and independent transitive signification, are: δανείζομαι pecuniam 
mutuo dandam sibi curare i.e. mutuam sumere Matt. v. 42, μισθοῦ- 

μαι allow something to be hired out to one’s self i.e. hive Matt. xx. 1. 


In some Middle verbs the reciprocal meaning is combined with the 
reflexive (Krii. 143) ; as, βουλεύεσθαι to consult with one another Jno. xii. 
10, συντίθεσθαι to settle, agree, among themselves Jno. ix. 22, κρίνεσθαι be at 
law, have a lawsuit 1 Cor. vi. 1 (in the quotation from the O. T. in Rom. 
iii. 4 also ?). 


4. Although the import of the Middle is sharply defined and 
peculiar, yet in practice, even among the best Greek authors, the 
forms of the Middle often blend with those of the Passive ; --- 
not merely, 

a. That those tenses which have no separate form in the Middle 
are borrowed from the Passive (the Present, Imperf., Perf., Pluperf., 





§ 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 255 


see Bttm. I. 868), and that the 1st Aor. Passive in several verbs 228 
serves at the same time as 1st Aor. Middle, as in φοβεῖσθαι, δ οἱ. 


«κοιμᾶσθαι, πορεύεσθαι, ἁγνίζεσθαι (Acts xxi. 24, 26; cf. also § 39, 


2); but 

b. Some tenses peculiar to the Middle assume a Passive signi- 
fication. These are the Future (Monk, Eurip. Hippol. p. 169, 
Lips.; Boisson. Eunap. p. 336; Poppo, Thue. I. I. 192 ; Stallb. Plat. 
Crit. 16 and rep. II. 230; Isocrat. Areopag. ed. Benseler, p. 229 ; 
Weber, Demosth. p. 353) ;1 and, though far more rarely and, 270 | 
especially in prose, not beyond question, the Aorist (d’Orville, 
Charit. p. 8358; Abresch, Aristaen. p. 178; Mtth. 1107 and ad Eurip. 
Hel. 42; yet cf. Schaef. Gnom. 166; Lob. 320). 

This usage, it has been thought, occurs in the N. T.: Gal. v. 12 
ὄφελον καὶ ἀποκόψονται οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες ὑμᾶς, yet here the 
Middle affords a very good sense (see my Com. in loc.) ; 1 Cor. 

x. 2 καὶ πάντες ἐβαπτίσαντο, which, however, (see Mey.) may be 
very suitably rendered: they all allowed themselves to be baptized 
(the reading ἐβαπτίσθησαν, which is found in very good Codd. 
[Sin. also], is probably an emendation) ;, the same applies to 1 Cor. 
vi. 11 ἀπελούσασθε. In Acts xv. 22 ἐκλεξαμένους, even if it were to 
be joined to ἄνδρας, would not be equivalent to ἐκλεχθέντας (see 
Kiihnél in loc.; Schwarz, Comm. p. 499), but would retain the 
Middle signification: who suffered themselves to be chosen, who 240 
(voluntarily) accepted the mission ; (ἐκλεχθέντας would mean : ‘th oA 
who were chosen, even without their consent).2 .But it is more 
probable that ἐκλεξαμένους should be referred to ἀπόστολοι. and 
πρεσβύτεροι, and translated; after they had chosen from among 
themselves persons ; see Elsner, observ. 1. 429. Cf. ὃ 63, I. 1, p. 567. 

5. The Active is sometimes employed in Greek authors where 
the Middle form might have been expected, (Poppo, Thue. I. 1.185 ; 
Locella, Xen. Eph. p. 233; Bttm. Soph. Philoct. p. 161; Siebelis, 
Pausan. 1.5; Weber, Demosth. 252 sq.). From the N. T., however, 
the following passage has been erroneously referred to this head: 

2 Cor. xi. 20 εἴ τις ὑμᾶς καταδουλοῖ if one brings you into bondage 
unto himself (sibi) (Gal. ii. 4, Middle as a var.). The Apostle 
wished to say generally: ¢f he brings you into bondage, makes you 
slaves. He speaks merely of enslavement; to whom and how, 

1 According to Sommer, as above, the Fut. Middle was itself, perhaps, originally 
Passive, and afterwards, on account of its more convenient form, preferred to the Fut. 
Pass. Cf. Rost, 561 f. 


2So perhaps Plutarch, orator. vit. 7 (V. 149, Lips.) πιστευσάμενος τὴν διοίκησιν 
τῶν χρημάτων. 


256 § 58. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 


must be gathered from the context. Likewise, in Luke xii. 20 
the Active is used with strict propriety: ἀπαιτοῦσιν ἀπὸ σοῦ they 
require of thee (where only the taking away of the ψυχή was to 
be expressed). On the other hand we sometimes find, at least in 
the text. recept., ποιεῖν, where classic Greek authors would have 
employed zroveio Pau! (Kiister, p. 87 sqq. 67 sqq.; Dresig, p. 401 sqq.; 
929 Krii. 141), e.g. συνωμοσίαν ποιεῖν Acts xxiii. 13 (Polyb. 1, 70, 6; 
th el. Herod. 7, 4,7), μονὴν ποιεῖν Jno. xiv. 23 (Thuc. 1,131 and Poppo), 
πρόθεσιν ποιεῖν Eph. iii. 11 5? but in the first two passages Lehm. 
has restored the Middle. Likewise εὑρίσκειν is used in the meaning 
of consequi for εὑρίσκεσθαι, see Fr. Mt. p. 390.8 
241 Occasionally the Middle and Active are used interchangeably,* 
ith el. as Luke xv. 6 συγκαλεῖ τοὺς φίλους, vs. 9 συγκαλεῖται τὰς φίλας ete. 
according to Lchm. (Tdf. has the Active here also) ;° it depended 
here on the writer (Franke, Demosth. p. 95), whether he would 
say, called together to himself, or generally, called together, — the 
latter being perfectly intelligible. Compare also Jas. iv. 2f. ai- 
τεῖτε Kal ov λαμβάνετε, διότι κακῶς αἰτεῖσθε, 1 Jno. iii. 22; οὗ v. 


1In Mark ii. 23 ὁδὸν ποιεῖν (where Codd. vary) is probably not put for ὅδὸν ποιεῖσθαι 
Her. 7, 42 (according to πορείαν ποιεῖσθαι Luke xiii. 22), as the meaning make a journey 
is here rather unsuitable. The translation must be quite literal: they made by plucking 
ears a pathway in the field. chm. in accordance with his theory has printed ὁδοποιεῖν, 
after B. 

2The Middle of ποιεῖν seldom occurs in the N. T. (almost exclusively in the Acts 
and, Paul’s Epistles), but then it always clearly exhibits a Middle signification. As 
the lexicons do not usually distinguish the Middle and Active, we shall here annex the 
phrases in which the Middle occurs: Acts i. 1 τὸν πρῶτον λόγον ἐποιησάμην, Vili. 2 ἐποι» 
hoavro κοπετόν, XXV.17 ἀναβολὴν ποιεῖσθαι, XXVii. 18 ἐκβολὴν ποιεῖσθαι, Rom. i. 9; Eph, 
i. 16; 1 Thess. i. 2; Philem. 4 μνείαν Τινὸς ποιεῖσθαι, 2 Pet. i. 15 μνήμην τινὸς ποιεῖσθαι, 
i. 10 ἐκλογὴν ποιεῖσθαι βεβαίαν, Jude 8 σπουδὴν ποιεῖσθαι, Phil. i. 4; 1 Tim. ii. 1 δέησιν 
ποιεῖσθαι, Rom. xv. 26 κοινωνίαν ποιεῖσθαι, Eph. iv. 16 τὸ σῶμα τὴν αὔξησιν ποιεῖται, Heb. 
i. 8 δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ καθαρισμὸν ποιησάμενος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν. To illustrate Greek usage much 
has been collected by Dresig, p. 422sqq.; see also Κ΄. Fritzsche, Aristoph. I. 538 sq. 
The distinction between the Act. and the Mid. has been stated by Blume, ad Lycurg. 
p- 55, thus: Est ποιεῖν, quotiescunque accusativus substantivi abstracti accedit, algud 
efficere, parare, faciendum curare, cause, bring to pass, institute, ποιεῖσθαι ipsum facere cum 
substantivis junctum periphrasin facit verbi, quod aut notatione aut certe notione 
nomini apposito conveniat. (On λόγον ποιεῖν and ποιεῖσθαι, see Weber, Demosth. 
p- 295.) 

3In Jno. v. 5 ἦν ἄνθρωπος ... τριάκ. καὶ ὀκτὼ ἔτη ἔχων ἐν. τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ it cannot be 
said that ἔχων is put for ἐχόμενος. Rather might ἔχειν ἐν ἄσθεν. be considered as 
equivalent to ἔχειν ἀσθενῶς (κακῶς). But according to verse 6 ἔχων is probably to be 
joined as transitive to ἔτη. 

4 The distinction between the Active and the Middle is forcibly marked e.g. in Dion. 
H. IV. 2088 τόν τε ἀετὸν dverwoduny, καὶ τὸν στρατοπεδάρχην ἔσωσα. 

5 In the same way along with καταλαμβάνεσθαι πόλιν, etc. (to capture, take possession of), 
καταλαμβάνειν πόλιν is also used ; cf. Schweighiuser, Lexic. Polyb. p. 330. 





§ 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. O57 


14 f.1 See Mtth. 1096 (Foertsch, Lys. p.39).2 In 1 Cor. ix. 5 περι- 
ἄγεσθαι might be more appropriate. Περιάγειν τινά signifies to 272 
lead about for exhibition, or to conduct, 2 Macc. vi. 10; Pol. 12, 4, 230 
14; but to lead about with one (in one’s company), is expressed δὶ δὲ 
by περιώγεσθαι. However, the Active is used perhaps in this sense 
in Xen. C. 2, 2, 28. Moreover, it would not be surprising that 
foreigners, not possessing in such matters the delicate perception of 
native Greeks, should sometimes fail to observe the precise shade 
of meaning conveyed by the Middle voice; particularly as, even 
among natives, its use appears to have often depended on the 
culture and taste of individual writers. Καθάπτω, an Active alto- 

: gether peculiar to the later language (see Passow), stands for the 

| Middle in Acts xxviii. 3 (yet not without var.). 


In such cases as Matt. xxvi. 65 διέῤῥηξε τὰ ἱμάτια αὑτοῦ, Acts xiv. 14, 
the expression διεῤῥήξατο τὰ ἱμάτια might also have been used in Greek, 
see above ; yet the former is not an anomaly, Bhdy. 848. The distinction 
between παρέχειν and παρέχεσθαι (Rost, 564; Krii. 141; cf. Kiister, No. 49) 
is not uniformly observed even by the Greeks ; yet the suitableness of the 
Middle will be easily recognized in Acts xix. 24; Col.iv. 1; Tit. ii. 7, and 
in Acts xvi. 16 ἐργασίαν πολλὴν παρεῖχε τοῖς κυρίοις αὑτῆς μαντευομένη 
the Active is more appropriate than the Middle, as the writer is speaking 
of a gain which the damsel procured actually only, not designedly. 


6. On the other hand, the Middle occurs with ἑαυτῷ Jno. xix. 24 242 
διεμερίσαντο ἑαυτοῖς (for which we find in Matt. xxvii. 35 διεμερίσαντο ἴὰ οἰ 
alone), cf. Xen C. 1, 4,13; 2, 1,30; Lycurg. 11, 8; 17, 3, and 
with ἑαυτόν, instead of the Active with ἑαυτόν (Plat. Protag. p. 349a.; 
Blume, Lycurg. p. 90). . In Tit. ii. T σεαυτὸν παρεχόμενος τύπον 
the use of the Middle in the sense of show one’s self (in any mental 
or moral quality) was so established, that the writer employed it 
even where σεαυτόν (on account of τύπον) had to be distinctly 
expressed ; cf. Xen. C. 8, 1, 39 παράδευγμα ... τοιόνδε ἑαυτὸν παρεί- 
χετο. For other examples of the Middle with ἑαυτῷ, ἑαυτόν, see 
Schaef. Dion. Hal. p. 88; Bornem. Xen. Anab. 76 sq.; Bhdy. 347; 

1In Mark xiv. 47 we find σπασάμενος τὴν μάχαιραν, but in Matt. xxvi. 51 ἀπέσπασε 
Thy μάχαιραν αὐτοῦ. 

2 Under this head might be classed also those Actives, accompanied by the reflexive 
pronoun, for which the Middles are also actually in use in a reflexive sense; as, ταπεινοῦν 
ἑαυτόν Phil. ii. 8; Matt. xviii. 4 cf. ταπεινοῦσθαι Jas. iv. 10 ( Wetst. IT. 271), δουλοῦν 
ἑαυτόν 1 Cor. ix. 19, ζωννύειν éavt. Jno. xxi. 18, γυμνάζειν éavt. 1 Tim. iv. 7 ete. But 
in all these passages the reflexive pronoun is employed antithetically (Krii. 146), and 
in Jno. xxi. e.g. the Mid. would even be incorrect. So κείρειν éavr. would mean, shear 


himself, κείρεσθαι shear himself. Besides, the Active with éavréy was probably chosen 
where the identity of the Passive and Middle forms would have occasioned ambiguity. 


ων χὰ ee 


πα bate om ate σν 


ee ων ee ee ee ee μι 


958 § 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 


Mehlhorn, as above, 86; Poppo, Thue. I. I. 189; cf. also Epiphan. 
1. 380 ὁπλισάμενος ἑαυτόν. In Tit. i. 5 ἐπιδιορθώσῃ, according to 
the received text (where, however, better Codd. have ἐπιδιορθώσῃς), 
would be exactly equivalent to the Active. As little can a Middle 
signification be recognized in ἀπεκδύεσθαι Col. ii. 15, ἀμύνεσθαι 

273 Acts vii. 24 (οἵ. Dion. H. I. 548), ἁρμόζεσθαι 2 Cor. xi. 2 (Losner, 
Observ. p. 820 sq.). Perhaps also προέχεσθαι Rom. iii. 9 is used 
for the Active. Similar instances occur in later writers, Schaef. 
Plutarch. V. 101; Meineke, Index ad Cinnam. 244.1 To this head 
are referred also Eph. v. 18 πᾶν τὸ φαν ερούμενον φῶς ἐστι, and 
i. 28 τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι πληρουμένου. But in the first 
passage φανεροῦσθαι occurs immediately before as a Passive, and 
the apostle continuing his argument connects davepovpevoy with 

Y31 φανεροῦται ; the former, therefure, must be taken in the same sense 

the. with the latter, as Harless and Mey. in loc. have explained: all 
things when reproved aie made manifest by the light, for everything 
that is made manifest is light. In i. 23 πληρουμ. might also be 
taken in a Passive sense (as has been done by Holzhausen) ; but 
then, as Harless has well shown, τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι would create 
difficulty. I take πληροῦσθαι, therefore, as Middle (Xen. Hell. 
5,4,56; 6,2,14; Demosth. Polyel. 707 b.), the fulness of him who 
filleth all, where the Middle signification is not entirely lost: from 
himself, with himself, he filleth all. Likewise in Heb. xi. 40 the 
Middle προβλέπεσθαι is employed correctly : προβλέπειν would be 
the bodily act of seeing beforehand ; the Middle expresses the act 
of mental providing. (Similar is the distinction in Greek authors 
between προορᾶσθαι and προϊδέσθαι.) 

A distinction between the use of the Act. and Mid. appears in the verb 
ἐνεργεῖν, the Active of which is used by Paul of personal action (1 Cor. 
xii. 6; Gal. ii. 8; Eph. i. 11, etc.), and the Middle of non-personal (Rom. 
vii. 5; Col. i. 29; 2 Thess. ii. 7, etc.). Hence in 1 Thess. ii. 13 ὅς must 
not be referred to θεός but to λόγος. 


943 ἢ. From Middle verbs are to be carefully distinguished Deponent. 
Τὰ ol. ‘These, under a Passive (or Middle) form, have a transitive or a 
neuter signification; and their Active forms either do not occur 
at all (in prose), or have, by usage, exactly the same meaning 
(Rost 267.) ;? as, δύνασθαι, δωρεῖσθαι, γίγνεσθαι, βιάξεσθαι, ἐντέλ- 


1Jn the passages selected by Schweighiuser, Lexic. Herod. II. 185, the distinctive 
import of the Middle Voice can be for the most part detected. 

2 Only in later authors do we find e.g. the Active of λυμαίνεσθαι, see Passow. On the 
other hand, the Active of δωρεῖσθαι occurs even in Pindar, Olymp. 6,131. In the ΝΟΣ, 
we find even εὐαγγελίζω, as frequently in the Sept. 


τι ee eS a eee ee πΦφὌοἕΨὍννοΕοὁρπρΠΠΠ ῊῸΠ 


es ge fra 


§ 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. — 259 


λεσθαι, εὔχεσθαι, ἐνθυμεῖσθαι, ἐργάξεσθαι, εὐλαβεῖσθαι, μάχεσθαι, ᾿ 
μέμφεσθαι, φείδεσθαι, ἀσπάζεσθαι, ἔρχεσθαι, ἡγεῖσθαι, ἰᾶσθαι, Noe 
ἕεσθαι, προαιτιᾶσθαι, and many others. With regard to Deponents 274 
it must be remarked that, 

a. Though most of them have in the Aorist the Middle form 
(Middle Deponents, as αἰτιᾶσθαι, ἀσπάζεσθαι, ἐργάζεσθαι, φείδεσθαι), 
yet not a few have in that tense the Passive (Passive Deponents), 
as βούλεσθαι, δύνασθαι, ἐπιμελεῖσθαι, εὐλαβεῖσθαι, σπλαγχνίζεσθαι, 
μωμᾶσθαι, etc. 

b. Others combine both forms, though then (in prose) either the 
one form or the other predominates. Among these is ἀρνεῖσθαι, on 
which (in opposition to Bttm.) see Poppo, Thuc. III. 1V.209. In 
the N. T. only its Aor. Mid. ἠρνησάμην occurs, which in Greek prose 
authors is precisely the rarer form. On the other hand, διαλέγεσθαι 
has always the Passive Aor. in biblical Greek. 

c. Sometimes in Middle Deponents, along with the Aor. (or 
Perf.) Mid. (with an Active signification), the Aor. or the Perf. 
Pass. with a Passive signification is in use; as, ἐθεάθην Matt. vi. 1; 
Mark xvi. 11 (Thue. 3, 38) ef. Poppo, Thue. ILI. I. 594sq., along 
with ἐθεασάμην I saw; ἰάθην Matt. viii. 13; Luke vi. 17 (Isa. liii. 5; 
Plat. legg. 6, 758d.) and ἴαμαι Mark v. 29 (on the other hand, 999 
ἰασάμην Active) ; ἐλογίσθην often (ef. Xen. C.3,1,33), ἀπεδέχθησαν bth εἰ. 
Acts xv.4 (Aor. Mid. Luke viii. 40; Acts xviii. 27) ef. 2 Macc. iii. 9., 
παρῃτημένος Luke xiv. 19 (Aor. Mid. Heb. xii. 19, 25), ἐῤῥύσθην 
2 Tim. iv. 17 (Aor. Mid. Col. i. 13; 2 Pet. ii. 7, ete.), ἐχαρίσθην 
1 Cor. ii. 12; Phil. i. 29 (Bhapetives Her. 8,5; Aor. Mid. often 
in N. T., see, in general, Rost, p. 566). 

d. The Fut. Pass. of λογίζομαι with a Passive meaning occurs 
in Rom. ii. 26, likewise ἰαθήσεται, Matt. viii. 8, ἀπαρνηθήσομαι᾽ 
Luke xii. 9. Even the Pres. of the first of these is used passively, 
Rom. iv. 5, cf. Eeclus. xl. 19 (not 2 Cor. x. 2); so also of βιάζεσθαι 
Matt. xi. 12, cf. Poppo, Thue. I. 184; III. 1. 31. 

e. The Perf. Pass. εἴργασμαι is sometimes used actively 2 Jno. 8 
(Demosth. Conon. 728a. Xen. M. 2, 6,6; Lucian. fugit. 2), and 
sometimes passively Jno. iii. 21 (Xen. M. 3, 10,9; Plat. rep. 8, 
566 a.) Rost, as above. On the other hand, ἤρνημαι 1 Tim. v. 8, 
ἐντέταλμαι Acts xiii. 47 (Herod. 1, 9, 23; Pol. 17, 2,1; 1 Sam. 
xxi. 2; Tob. v. 1, etc.), and δέδεγμαι Acts viii. 14, have only an 
Active meaning. See, in general, Bttm. II. 51; Bhdy. 341, but 
especially Poppo in the programme mentioned above, and Rost, 
Gramm. S. 266 ff. 


960 § 39. THE PASSIVE. 


That among verbs usually called Deponent there are many to be 
244 regarded as Middle, has been noticed by Rost, Gramm. 8. 268 f. and 
ith ed. Mehlhorn, as above, S. 39. With regard to πολιτεύεσθαι this is already 
275 admitted. But κτάομαι 7 acquire for myself, ἀγωνίζομαι (Rost 268), βιάζεσθαι, 
μεγαλαυχεῖσθαι, and perhaps δέχομαι, ἀσπάζομαι (according to Passow a 
Deponent Middle), should be also considered as Middle, as in all of them 
a reflexive meaning is more or less apparent. Πληροῦσθαι Eph. i. 23 is by 
Mey. [in Ist and 2d ed.; not so in 3d] called a Deponent, but improperly. 
Ὑστερεῖσθαι occurs only in the N. T. as synonymous with the Active. 
Lastly, μαίνομαι as well as ἡττάομαι must, as among the Greeks, be taken 
Passively ; Sommer, as above, p. 36. 


§ 39. THE PASSIVE. 


1. When a verb governing the Gen. or Dat. of a person, as 
πιστεύειν τινί, κατηγορεῖν Twos, is construed in the Passive, the 
Greeks generally make the noun denoting the person the Subject 
(Krii. 137) ; as, 

a. Gal. ii. T πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον 1.6. πεπιστευμένον ἔχω 
τὸ εὐαγγ. (Actively πιστεύειν τινί τι), Rom. ili. 2 ἐπιστεύθησαν (the 
Jews vs. 1) τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ, 1 Cor. ix. 17 οἰκονομίαν πεπίστευμαι 
cf. Diog. L. 7, 84 πιστευθέντες τὴν ἐν Περγάμῳ βιβλιοθήκην, Pol. 
8, 69, 1 πεπιστευμένος τὴν πόλιν παρὰ Ῥωμαίων, 31, 26,7; Herod. 
7, 9, 1; Demosth. Theocr. 507 ο. ; Appian. civ. 2,186; Strabo 4, 
197 ; 17, 797, and often. Likewise, iu the signification to believe 
some one (πιστεύειν τινί), the Passive πειστεύομαι signifies I am 
believed, e.g. Xen. A. 7, 6, 33; Isocr. Trapez. p. 874; Demosth. 

933 Callip. 720 ἃ., βασιλεύομαι Aristot. Nic. 8,11. [Ὁ is otherwise in 
Ηἱ οἱ..1 Tim. iii, 16 ἐπιστεύθη (Χριστὸς) ἐν κόσμῳ, which cannot be 
referred to πιστεύειν Χριστῷ, but presupposes the phrase πιστεύειν 
Χριστόν, as in 2 Thess. i. 10 ἐπιστεύθη τὸ μαρτύριον ἡμῶν is referable 
to πιστεύειν τι, 1 Jno. iv. 16. Under this head come also the 
following passages: Acts xxi. 3 ἀναφανέντες τὴν Κύπρον when it 
appeared in sight, i.e. ἀναφανεῖσαν ἔχοντες tiv K., Heb. xi. 2 ἐν 
ταύτῃ ἐμαρτυρήθησαν oi πρεσβύτεροι (μαρτυρεῖν τινι), Acts xvi. 2 
etc., Heb. xiii. 16 εὐαρεστεῖται ὁ θεός (Bleek in loc.), likewise viii. 5 
καθὼς κεχρημάτισται Μωῦσῆς (Matt. ii. 12, 22; Joseph. antt. 3,8, 8) 
and Matt. xi. 5 (Luke vii. 22) πτωχοὶ εὐωγγελίξζονται, Heb. iv. 2— 
the latter passages because the construction εὐαγγελίζεσθαί τινι (see 
276 Fr. Mtth. p. 395) and χρηματίζειν τινί (Joseph. antt. 10,1, 3; 11, 


1 The reverse ἀπιστοῦμαι Wisd. xii. 17. 


Ee  ΎΡΥ — 


- ro. 


Se ων eee ee 





889. THE PASSIVE. 261 


8, 4) is the usual one; probably also Col. ii. 20 τί ὡς ξῶντες ἐν 
κόσμῳ δογματίζεσθε (δογματίζειν τινί 2 Macc. x. 8) see Mey. In 
8 Jno. 12 the Passive μαρτυρεῖσθαι is construed also with the Dative 
of a person. 

Ὁ. Of verbs governing the Genitive, only the Passive κατηγοροῦμαι 


occurs, Matt. xxvii.12 ἐν τῷ κατηγορεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχιερέων, 245 
Acts xxii. 80 τὸ τί κατηγορεῖται ὑπὸ (παρὰ) τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων (2 Mace. MH οἰ 
‘x. 13). On the other hand, I can find no sufficient reason for 


taking κεχάρισμαι 2 Cor. ii. 10 passively, as Mey. does [yet in the 
4th ed. he has it correctly]. 


In Rom. vi. 17 ὑπηκούσατε... εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς, this con- 
struction is perhaps combined with an attraction (for ὕπηκ. εἰς τύπον 
διδαχῆς, ὃν παρεδόθητε, i.e. παραδοθέντα ἔχετε) ; yet see above, ὃ 24, 2, p. 164. 

Heb. vii. 11 6 λαὸς ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς (ἱερωσύνης) νενομοθέτηται may probably be 
referred to νομοθετεῖν τινε: the people have received the law (founded) on 
the priesthood, cf. viii. 6. On the other hand, the passages quoted from 
the Sept. as parallel to νομοθετεῖν τινά (τι) do not belong here, as in that 
construction the verb always signifies: guide some one in accordance with 
law, e.g. Ps. exviii. 33 νομοθέτησόν pe τὴν ὁδὸν τῶν δικαιωμάτων σου, xxiv. 8 
νομοθετήσει ἁμαρτάνοντας ἐν 669. But the Byzantine writers use νομοθετεῖν 
τινα (in reference to a country or people), Malal. p. 72,194. The regular 
construction of the Passive occurs in Deut. xvii. 10 ὅσα ἂν νομοθετηθῇ σοι. 


2. In the N. T. many verbs which in the Middle signification 
have uniformly in classical Greek the 1st Aor. Middle, take instead 
of that the Ist Aor. Passive (ef. § 38,4), as: dzexpiOn} (the 
prevailing form), especially in the Partic. ἀποκριθείς (Aor. Middle 
ἀπεκρίνατο Mark xiv. 61; Luke iii. 16; xxiii. 9; Jno. v. 19; 
xii. 23; Acts iii. 12, and frequently in var. as Jno. i. 26; xii. 34; 
xviii. 34) cf. Sturz, dial. alex. p, 148sq.; Lob. Phryn. 148 sq.; 
Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 305. In like manner διεκρίθη, Matt. xxi. 21; 
Mark xi. 23; Rom. iv. 20 (but ἐκρίθη in a Passive sense in Acts 


xxvii. 1). In other passages Aorists still regarded as Aor. Pass. for 234 
Middle, viz. προςεκλίθη Acts v. 36, ἐνεδυναμώθη Rom. iv. 20, παρε- ‘th od 


δόθητε vi. 17, ταπεινώθητε 1 Pet. v. 6; Jas. iv. 10, are really ac- 
cording to classic (and even N.T.) usage Passive Aorists ; just as 
in Latin servari, delectari, are used for (taking German as the 


standard) servare se, delectare se, cf. Rost 568.2 The same remark 277 


1 Yet we find the form ἀπεκρίθη in the MSS. of Xen. A. 2,1,22. On Plato Alc. 2 
p- 149 Ὁ. see Phryn. as above. In authors after the age of Alexander it occurs frequently. 

2 From which we find the Fut. ἀποκριθήσομαι Matt. xxv. 37, 45 and in the Sept. 

8 The Aor. Mid, of such verbs is usually employed only with the Acc. in the reflexive 
construction mentioned § 38,2. Thus ἐσώθην méans me servavi (servatus sum): but 
oue says ἐσωσάμην τὸ σῶμα corpus meum (mihi) servavi. 


262 § 89. THE PASSIVE. 


applies to the 2d Aor. καταλλαγήτω 1 Cor. vii. 11; 2 Cor. νυ. 20 
(cf. Rom. v. 10), and to the Fut. (προς)κολληθήσεται Matt. xix. 5 
(Eph. v. 31). 


Eph. i. 11 ἐκληρώθημεν (see Harl. in loc.) and Acts xvii. 4 προςεκλη- 
ρώθησαν are obviously to be taken Passively. 


τὰ 3. That the Perfect (Mtth. 1097) and the Plup. Passive have 
‘also a Middle signification is admitted on all hands since the old- 
fashioned Perf. and Plup. Middle disappeared from the grammars; 
Bttm. I. 862. In the N.T. compare Acts xiii. 2 (els) ὃ προς- 
κέκλημαι αὐτούς whereunto I have called them for myself, xvi. 10 
TPOSKEKANTAL ἡμᾶς ὁ κύριος εὐαγγελίσασθαι αὐτούς the Lord has called 
us for himself etc. (ef. Exod. iii. 18 ; v. 8), xxv. 12 καίσαρα ἐπικέκλη- 
cat thou hast called for thyself upon Caesar (appealed to him), Rom. 
iv. 21 ὃ ἐπήγγελται, δυνατός ἐστι καὶ ποιῆσαι (ὁ θεός), Heb. xii. 26; 
Jno. ix. 22 συνετέθειντο οἱ “Ἰουδαῖοι, 1 Pet. iv. 8 πεπορευμένους ἐν 
ἀσελγείαις (1 Sam. xiv. 17; 2 Kings v. 25; Job xxx. 28; Zeph. 
iii.15 ; Demosth. Nicostr. 723 ¢. etc.). (On the Perf. Passive of 
Deponents, see § 38, 7, p. 259.) 


On the other hand, in 1 Pet. iv. 1 πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας (which is usually 
rendered peccare desitt, cf. Xen. C. 3,1, 18) may be also taken as Passive: 
he has rest from sin, is preserved from it, see Kypkein loc. Phil. iii. 12, 
however, in no event comes under this head. ἸΠολιτεύομαι (Acts xxiii. 1) 
may according to Poppo’s theory be considered as a Deponent (since the 
Active in an intransitive sense is to be found) ; yet see above, p. 260. In 
Rom. xiv. 23 κατακέκριται was undoubtedly employed by the apostle in a 
Passive sense. 
The Perf. Passive is said to be used for the Perf. Active in Acts xx. 13 
οὕτω yap ἦν (ὃ Παῦλος) δεατεταγμένος, and 2 Pet. i. 3 τῆς θείας δυνάμεως 
--. τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν δεδωρημένης (cf. Jensii lectt. Lucian. p. 247). But in 
the first passage, διατ. is Middle (as in Polyaen. 6,1, 5; Joseph. antt. 4, 2, 
8 and elsewhere) : so had he appointed ; and in 2 Pet. i. 3 the Perf. comes 
from the Deponent! δωρέομαι. Further, cf. Poppo, Thue. I. I. 179 sqq. 
235 Note 1. The Fut. Pass. is used in a very singular manner in Acts xxvi. 16 
Cth el. εἰς τοῦτο ὦφθην σοι, προχειρίσασθαί σε ὑπηρέτην καὶ μάρτυρα, ὧν τε εἶδες, ὧν 
278 τε ὀφθήσομαί co. Agreeably to the parallelism the passage might be trans- 


1 Markland (explicatt. vett. aliquot locor. in the Leipsic reprint of his edition of 
Eurip. supplic. p. 324 sq.) refers to this head also the passage, famous in the Predesti- 
nation controversy, Acts xiii.48, which he punctuates «. ἐπίστευσαν, ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι, 
eis ζωὴν αἰών. and translates: et fidem professi sunt, quotquot (tempus, diem) constitu- 
erant, in vitam aeternam. This interpretation, however, should find with unprejudiced 
expositors as little approval as most of those which come from English philologists, 
(who at any rate give more attention to the N. T. than the German). 


§ 39. THE PASSIVE. 263 





lated : what thou hast seen, and what I will cause thee to see, ὀφθήσομαι 
being taken in a causative sense (see Doederl. Soph. Oedip. C. p. 492; 
Bornem. in Rosenm. Rep. II. 289). The other interpretation, followed in 
general by Schott, Kiihnél, Heinrichs, Mey.,de Wette: de quibus (in refer- 
ence to which) or guorum caussa tibi porro apparebo, would on the whole 
be more suited to the context, and is certainly simpler than the former. 
As to ὧν for ἅ by attraction, see ὃ 24, 2, p. 165 sq. 

Note 2. As in the Hellenistic language many verbs which in classic Greek 247 
are neuter are used transitively (see above, p. 251), expositors affirm that Til ot 
the Passive also, conformably to this causal signification, is occasionally to 
be taken just like the Hebrew Hophal. But of this there is no certain or 
even probable instance. In Gal. iv. 9 γνόντες θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπ᾽ 
αὐτοῦ even the antithesis requires the passage to be rendered: knowing God, 
or rather known (recognized) by God, see my Comment. in loc. 1 Cor. viii. 3 
εἴ τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν θεόν, οὗτος ἔγνωσται ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ should not be translated, as 
by Erasm., Beza, Nésselt, Pott, Heydenreich, et ἃ]. : ts veram intelligen- 
tiam consecutus est ; but the meaning is: whoever imagines he knows any- 
thing (that is where a γνῶσις φυσιοῦσα exists) has not yet known as one 
ought to know, but if any one loves God (cf. the preceding words ἢ ἀγάπη 
οἰκοδομεῖ), he (has not only known as he ought to know, but) 7s known by 
Him (God), (is himself an object of the highest and truest, that is of 
divine, knowledge). In 1 Cor. xiii. 12 ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ 
ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσ θην, the latter undoubtedly refers to the 
knowledge of God, and Nésselt has correctly rendered the passage : there 
we shall know all perfectly (not ἐκ μέρους, not as if ἐν αἰνίγματι), even 
as perfectly as God knows us.’ -It has not yet been shown from Biblical 
Greek that γινώσκειν denotes cognoscere facere, edocere ; and probably Pott 
did not understand himself when he quoted Jno. v.42; Rom. ii. 18. This 
meaning, however, meets us in a passage adduced by Stephanus in his 
Thesaurus from Demosth. cor. (p. 345 ¢.): ὡμολόγηκε viv y ὑμᾶς ὑπάρχειν 
ἐγνωσμένους ἐμὲ μὲν λέγειν ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος, αὐτὸν δ᾽ ὑπὲρ Φιλίππου ; 
but it disappears if we read ἡμᾶς, as Dissen does, on the authority of a Cod., 
nos esse cognitos (i.e. de nobis constare), me quidem verba facere pro 
patria, ete. 

Note 3. Frequently it has seemed doubtful whether a particular verbal 
form is Middle or Passive. The decision is grammatical only in so far as it 236 
can be shown that the verb in question was never used either in the Pas- ‘th οἰ. 
; sive or in the Middle, or that in the Middle it had an Active signification. 279 
Hence in Rom. i. 24 ἀτιμάζεσθαι is properly regarded as Passive; so too 
οἰκοδομεῖσθαι 1 Cor. viii. 10, παύεσθαι 1 Pet. iv. 1, ἀνανεοῦσθαι Eph. iv. 23. 

On the other hand, 1 Cor. i. 2 of ἐπικαλούμενοι τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου can only 
be Middle. -In other passages either the context must decide,—as in. 


ᾷ 
Ἵ 


. 


ee 


ΡΒ ek as 


z 1 A similar antithesis of the Active and Passive occurs in Phil. iii.12f. Cf. Arrian. 
᾽ Epict. 3, 23, 8 δύναταί τις ὠφελῆσαι καὶ ἄλλους μὴ αὐτὸς ὠφελημένος ; Liban. ep. 2. 


264. ὃ 40, THE TENSES. 


2 Cor. ii. 10 where κεχάρισμαι (Mey. to the contrary [in his earlier edd.]) 
is to be regarded as Middle, and Rom. iii. 9 where προέχεσθαι clearly 
cannot be Passive; or the known usage of the writer elsewhere, as in 
Eph. vi. 10 in respect to ἐνδυναμοῦσθε. 


248 §40. THE TENSES. 
th ed. 

1. With regard to the Tenses of the verb, N.T. grammarians and 
expositors | have been guilty of the greatest mistakes.2. In general, 
the tenses ὃ are employed in the N. T. exactly in the same manner 
as in Greek authors, * viz. the Aorist marks simply the past (merely 
occurrence at some former time— viewed too as momentary), and is 
the tense usually employed in narration ; the Imperfect and Pluper- 
fect always have reference to secondary events connected in respect 
to time with the principal event (as relative tenses) ; the Perfect 
brings the past into connection with the present, representing an 
action in reference to the present as concluded. No one of these 
tenses strictly and properly taken can stand for another, as com- 
237 mentators often would have us believe. But where such an inter- 
th el. change appears to take place (cf. Georgi, Vind. p. 252 sqq. Hiero- 
280 crit. I. 58sq.) either it is merely apparent, and a sufficient reason 

(especially a rhetorical one) can be discovered why this and no other 
tense has been used, or it is to be set down to the account of 
a certain inaccuracy peculiar to the language of the people, which 
did not conceive and express relations of time with entire precision 


1 Cf, Bertholdt, Einleit. VI. 3151: “In the use of the tenses, it is well known that 
the N. T. writers pay very little regard to the rules of grammar.” 

2 Oceasioned in part by parallel passages which it was thought must be considered 
as exactly alike grammatically. The abuse of parallelism in exposition ought some- 
time to be exhibited separately. 

8 The three principal tenses with the Greeks were the Present, the Perfect, and the 
Future: Plut. Isid. ο. 9 évé εἰμι τὸ γεγονὸς καὶ ὃν καὶ ἐσόμενον, cf. Odyss. 16, 437. 

4 Cf., besides the well known grammatical works (especially Hm. emend. rat. p. 180sqq. ; 
Schneider, Vorles. iiber griech. Gramm. I. 239 ff.; Krii. 147 ff.), LZ. G. Dissen, de tempo- 
ribus et modis verbi graeci. Gott. 1808. 4to.; H. Schmidt, doctrinae tempor. verbi 
gr. et lat. expositio histor. Hal. 1836-1842. 4 Abthl. 4to. An earlier dissertation by 
G. W. Oeder, Chronol. grammat. Gott. 1743 (in Pott, Sylloge VIT. 133 864.) is of little 
use. On the other hand, the enall. temp. was combated in A. zum Felde, de enall. praes. 
temp. in S. S. usu. Kil. 1711. 4to., and in Woken’s work, mentioned above (p. 8, Note!) ; 
cf. also the views of Aristides in Georgi, Vind. 252. 

+ 5 The arbitrary interchange of tenses (enallage temporum) is accounted a Hebraism, 
as it is imagined that in Hebrew the Preterite is indiscriminately used for the Future, 
and vice versa. But the incorrectness of this opinion has been already shown by Gesenius 
(Lehrgeb. S. 760 sqq.), and still more thoroughly by Lwald (Krit. Gr. 523 ff.). 





840. THE TENSES. 265 


(Krii. 158 f.). The latter occurs chiefly in the interchange (or 
combination) of those tenses which, like the Preterites, denote one 
and the same principal relation of time. 


2. Accordingly the Pressnr tense, which expresses present time ag 
in all its relations (particularly in rules, maxims, and principles of 


permanent validity, cf. Jno. vii. 52), is used 

‘a. Only in appearance for the Future (exactly asin Latin, German, 
etc.) when an action still future is to be designated as as good as 
already present, either because it is already firmly resolved upon or 
because it follows according to some unalterable law ; as, Matt. xxvi. 
2 οἴδατε, ὅτε μετὰ δύο ἡμέρας τὸ πάσχα γίνεται (is the Passover) 
καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται εἰς τὸ σταυρωθῆναι (is delivered, 
an event which as a divine decree is fixed), Jno. xiv. 3 ἐὰν πορευθῶ 
«ον πάλιν ἔρχομαι καὶ παραλήψομαι (xxi. 23), Matt. xvii. 11 Ἤλιίας 
μὲν ἔρχεται (a point of Jewish Christology) καὶ ἀποκαταστήσει 
πάντα cf. Jno. vii. 42, Luke xii. 54 ὅταν ἴδητε τὴν νεφέλην ἀνατέλλου- 
σαν ἀπὸ δυσμῶν, εὐθέως λέγετε: ὄμβρος ἔρχεται (in reference toa 
meteorological principle founded on experience), Col. iii. 6 δὲ ἃ 
ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας (according to a 
law of God’s moral government), Heb. iv. 3; 1 Cor. iii. 13; χνυ. 2 ; 
Eph. v. 5. Hence the expression ἔρχεται dpa ὅτε, used by Jesus 
Jno. iv. 21; xvi. 2, and the Jewish designation ὁ ἐρχόμενος (ἈΞ) 
for the Messiah. The phrase in John ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγώ followed by the 
Fut., Jno. xii. 26; xiv. 3; xvii. 24, may be also brought under this 
head, if we do not prefer the interpretation where J am, where I 
have myhome. It would be a mistake in translating these passages 
to substitute the Future for the Present preferred by the writer. 
Cf. Poppo, Thue. I. I. 153; Krii. 149, and as to Latin, Ramshorn 
p- 401. In other passages the Present is employed to denote what 
is just about to take place, what one is on the point of doing, that for 


which he is already making preparation (Hm. Vig. 746 and Soph. 281 


Oed. C. 91; Bekker, specim. Philostr. p. 73 sq.; Schoem. ad Isaeum 
Ρ. 202); as, Jno. x. 32 διὰ ποῖον αὐτῶν ἔργον λιθάζετέ pe (they 
had already taken up stones), Jno. xiii. 6 κύριε, σύ μου νύπτεις τοὺς 


πόδας ; (he had already prepared to wash them), xiii. 27;1 xvi. 17 238 
(ὑπάγων, xvii. 11; xxi. 3; 1 Cor. xii. 31; 2 Cor. xiii. 1; Rom. “ἢ δ 


xv. 25. See, in general, Held, Plutarch. Tim. p. 835 sq. 


1 Ὃ ποιεῖς, ποίησον τάχιον quod (jam) facis, quo jam occupatus es, id (fac) perfice 
ocius ; cf. Arrian. Epict. 4, 9, 18 ποίει ἃ ποιεῖς, 3, 23, 1, and Senec. benef. 2, 5 fac, si 
quid facis ; see Wetsten. 1.931. The command or recommendation here is not conveyed 
in the verb, but in the adverb annexed. 

34 


250 
ἴμ ed. 


282 


4 


266 840. THE TENSES. 


Many other passages have been referred to this head with still less 
plausibility. In Jno. iii. 36 the thought is weakened, if ἔχει be taken for 
ἕξει. The notion which John attached to ζωή not only admits, but almost 
requires, the Present. And apart from this, the expression ἔχειν ζωὴν 
αἰώνιον might very well be used of one who indeed is not yet in the enjoy- 
ment of eternal life, but who in the certainty of his hope already as it 
were possesses it. So also Jno. v. 26; Matt. v. 46, have been correctly 
explained by Fr. On the other hand, we must not with him regard Matt. 
iii. 10 as a general maxim: every tree which bringeth not forth good frutt, 
is hewn down (is wont to be hewn down). These words are connected by 
οὖν with ἡ ἀξίνη πρὸς τὴν ῥίζαν τῶν δένδρων κεῖται, and require to be rendered 
with a special reference to the preceding δένδρα : the axe is already lying 
at the root of the trees ; accordingly every tree etc. is, (will be) to a cer- 
tainty, hewn down ; i.e. from the fact of the axe’s being already applied, 
it may be inferred what fate awaits the bad trees. 1 Cor. xv. 35 πῶς 
ἐγείρονται ot νεκροί treats of the resurrection of the dead, not as a fact 
(of the future), but as a doctrine: in what manner does the resurrection 
of the dead (according to thy teaching) take place? cf. vs. 42. In the 
same way we can say: Christ 7s the Judge; the punishments of the damned 
are eternal etc. In like manner Matt. ii. 4 ποῦ 6 Χριστὸς γεννᾶται (i.e. 
where is the birthplace of the Messiah ?) and Jno. vii. 52. In 2 Cor. v. 1 
οἴδαμεν, ὅτι, ἐὰν ἡ ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους καταλυθῇ, οἰκοδομὴν ἐκ θεοῦ 
ἔχομεν, the Future ἕξομεν would have been inexact; the instantaneous 
entrance into a new habitation, the moment the καταλύεσθαι takes place, is 
intended to be expressed. In Matt. vii. 8 the Present (of what usually 
occurs, Krii. 148) is connected, in a statement of universal application, with 
the Future, cf. Rom. vi. 16; Gal. ii.16. On the other hand, in Matt. iii. 11 
the Present and the Future (of one about to come) are intentionally dis- 
tinguished: the Present refers to the predicted, permanent (and already 
present) personality; the Future, βαπτίσει, to a particular function which 
he is to execute. Lastly, in the parallel passages Matt. xxiv. 40 and Luke 
xvii. 34 we find in the former the Present, ὃ εἷς παραλαμβάνεται, but 
in the latter the Future, εἷς παραληφθήσεται; in the one passage the 
fact introduced by the Fut. (ἔσονται) is by a vivid conception regarded as 
present (see what follows) ; in the other, it is depicted in all its parts as 
future. Cf. besides, Jno. xvi. 14, 15; Heb. i. 11. 


b. For the Aorist as a historical tense, only when the narrator 
wishes to represent the past vividly, as though it were just taking 
place (Longin. ο. 25; Mith.1135f.; cf. Zumpt, lat. Gramm. 8.431.) ; 

Jno. i. 29 τῇ ἐπαύριον βλέπει ... καὶ λέγει (vs. 82 καὶ ἐμαρτύ- 
pnoev), i. 44 εὑρίσκει Φίλιππον καὶ λέγει (ἠθέλησεν just before) 


1In what immediately follows, οὐκ ὄψεται ζωήν, the Apostle very accurately dis- 
tinguishes the Future from the Present. 


840. THE TENSES. 267 


ef. 46, xiii. 4 f.; Matt. xxvi. 40 ἔρχεται πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς καὶ εὑρίσκει 239 
αὐτοὺς καθεύδοντας. Such a Present is often introduced abruptly δ δ. 
between Aorists, Jno. ix. 13; xviii. 28; xix. 9; Acts x. 11; Mark 
v. 15; or Present and Aorist are combined in the same verse, as 
Mark vi. 1; ix. 2;xi.15; Jno. xx. 6,19. In the first three Gospels 
one Evangelist uses the Present, while in the corresponding nar- 
rative another employs the Aorist; with Matt. xxi. 13 cf. Mark 
xi. 17 f., and with Matt. xxii. 23 cf. Mark xii. 18. This Present 
occurs also in the Apocalyptic visions; as, Rev. xi. 9; xii. 2. As 251 
to the Sept., in which this usage is extremely rare, see Thiersch me 
p- 187. Suddenness in a series of past events is indicated with 
striking effect by the Present in Matt. ii. 13 ἀναχωρησάντων αὐτῶν 
ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κυρίου φαίνεται κατ᾽ ὄναρ, etc. 


Similar instances occur in Xen. Hell. 2,1, 1ὅ ; Cyr. 4,6,4; 10; 5,4, 3; 
Ages. 2, 19-20; Thuc. 1, 48; 2, 68; Paus. 1,17, 4; 9,6,1; Arrian. Al. 
7,17,5; Dion. H. IV. 2113; Achill. Tat. 4, 4, p.85; Jacobs, Xen. Ephes. 
5, 12, p. 113; cf. Abresch, Aristaen. p. 11 sq.; Ast, Plat. Phaedr. p. 335; 
Ellendt, Arrian. Al. II. 68. 


c. Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), 
viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier 
period but still continues, — a state in its duration; as, Jno. xv. 27 
am ἀρχῆς μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ, Vili. 58 πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμι (cf. 
Jer. i. ὃ πρὸ τοῦ με πλάσαι σε ἐν κοιλίᾳ, ἐπίσταμαί σε, Ps. 1xxxix. 2), 
2 Pet. iii. 4; 1 Jno. iii. ὃ. Τὸ this head may be referred likewise 
Acts xxv. 11 εἰ μὲν ἀδικῶ καὶ ἄξιον θανάτου πέπραχά τι (cf. Xen. C. 
ὅ,2,24); ἀδικῶ, however, denotes ἃ quality existing in reference to 288 
the judge, ἄδικός εἶμι, see Bhdy. 370; Mtth. 1137. In Jno. viii. 14 
there is first an Aorist and then a Present: οἶδα πόθεν ἦλθον... 
ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ οἴδατε, πόθεν ἔρχομαι. 

In 1 Jno. iii. 5 the sinlessness of Jesus is considered as still present to 
faith (see Liicke) ; but in Acts xxvi. 31 οὐδὲν θανάτου ἄξιον ἢ δεσμῶν πράσσει 
does not refer to Paul’s past life, but to his conduct in general: this man 
(80 simple an enthusiast) does nothing bad ; see Bengel in loc. (Kiihnél is 
wrong) ; cf. Jno. vil. 51. Recent expositors have admitted that in Heb. 
ii. 16 ἐπιλαμβ. is not to be taken as a past tense (Georgi, Vind. 25; 
Palair. 479) ; likewise εἰςίασιν in ix. 6 is a pure Pres. In 1 Cor. xi. 30 
κοιμῶνται is properly translated by Bengel obdormiunt (later critics have 
all either rendered it as a past tense, or taken no notice of it; yet even 
in Byzantine writers κοιμᾶσθαι signifies only to fall asleep, expire, and not 
to be dead). On παράγεται in 1 Jno. ii. 8 see Liicke. In Jno. v. 2 no 
expositor of any judgment will admit the possibility even that ἐστί stands 
for jv. On the other hand, the use of the Present does not necessarily 


268 $40, THE TENSES. 


prove that the locality was still in the same condition when the author 
wrote ; cf. Schoem. Plutarch. Agid. p. 135 sqq. 
The Present in dependent clauses may appear to stand for the Imperfect ; 
as, Ino. ii. 9 οὐκ ἤδει, πόθεν ἐστίν, iv. 1 ἤκουσαν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ... 
240 ποιεῖ καὶ βαπτίζει, Mark v.14 ἐξῆλθον ἰδεῖν, τί ἐστι τὸ γεγονός, xii. 41; xy. 47; 
6th ed. Jno. i. 40; v. 18, 1ὅ ; vi. ὅ, 24, 64; Luke vii. 837; xix. 3; Acts iv. 13; 
ix. 26; x. 18; xii. 3; Heb. xi. 8, 13— (the Preterite, found in most of 
these passages according to a greater or smaller number of Codd., is a 
manifest correction.) But the use of the Present in such cases is a pure 
Greek construction (see Vig. p. 214sq.; cf. below ὃ 41 b. 5), founded 
959 properly in a mingling of the oratio recta and oratio obliqua (Porson, 
ith ed, Eurip. Orest. p. 36 Lips.),! cf. Pol. 5, 26,6; 8,22,2and4; Ael. 2,13 ext.; 
Long. past. 1,10 and 13. In these passages the Imperf. or the Aor. might 
have intimated that what was inquired about or heard was already past 
at the time when the inquiry or the hearing took place; cf. Jno. ix. 8 οἱ 
θεωροῦντες αὐτὸν τὸ πρότερον, ὅτι τυφλὸς ἦν, Luke viii. 53; Matt. xxvii. 18; 
Acts iv. 18. 
3. The Imprrrect, asin Greek prose authors (Bhdy. 872 f. ; Krii. 
149 ff.), is used 
a. When a past action is to be designated in relation to another 
simultaneous action as then going on (Bremi, Demosth. p. 19) ; 
as, Jno. iv. 81 ἐν τῷ μεταξὺ ἠρώτων αὐτόν (viii. 6, 8), vi. 21; Luke 
284 xiv. T ἔλεγε ... ἐπέχων, πῶς τὰς πρωτοκλισίας ἐξελέγοντο how 
they (then) were choosing out, xxiv. 82 ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν καιομένη ἣν 
ἐν ἡμῖν, ὡς ἐλάλει ἡμῖν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, Acts Vili. 80 ὡς ἐπορεύοντο κατὰ 
τὴν ὁδὸν, ἦλθον ἐπί τι ὕδωρ, X. 17; xvi. 4; xxii. 11; Luke vi. 19; 
Jno. v. 16; xii. 6. 
b. To denote a continuous or statedly repeated past action (Mtth. 
1117, 1133 ; Schoem. ad Plut. Agid. p. 187; Held, Plutarch. Aem. 
P. p. 267) ; as, Jno. iii. 22 ἐκεῖ διέτριβε μετ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐβάπτιζεν, 
Rom. xv. 22 ἐνεκοπτόμην ta πολλὰ τοῦ ἐλθεῖν, 1 Cor. x. 4 ἔπινον 
yap ἐκ πνευματ. ἀκοχλουθούσης πέτρας (where ἔπιον denotes simply 
the past and completed action ; but ἔπενον the continuation of it 
during the journey through the wilderness), xiii. 11 ὅτε ἤμην νήπιος, 
ὡς νήπιος ἐλάλουν, Acts xiii. 11 περιάγων ἐζήτει χειραγωγούς, Matt. 
Xiii. 84 χωρὶς παραβολῆς οὐκ ἐλάλει (during his ministry), cf. Luke 
v.15 ; vi. 23; viii. 41,52; xvii. 28; xxiv. 14, 27; Matt. iii. 5 ; xxvii. 
39; Marki. 7,31; Jno. v.18; vii. 1; xi. 5; xiii. 22 f.5 xii. 2; xxi. 
18; Acts vi. 1, 7 (Thuc. 1, 29); ix. 20; xi. 20; xviii. 25; xxvi. 1, 
11; xxviii. 6; Rev. i. 9; 1 Pet. iii. 5; 2 Pet. ii. 8; Heb. xii. 10; 
1 On the still more extended use of the Present in parenthetical clauses for a Pret- 
erite, see Bttm. Gr. § 124, Note 6, and ad Philoct. p. 129. 


Re el ee 





a a rl el a a 


x 
: 
- 
7. 








§ 40. THE TENSES. 969 


Col. iii. 7, ete. So Xen. A. 1, 2,18; 4,5,18; 5, 4,24; 6,3, 3; 
Mem. 1, 1,5; Apol. Socr. 14. Accordingly the Imperfect denotes 
a custom or habit; as, Mark xv. 6 κατὰ ἑορτὴν ἀπέλυεν αὐτοῖς ἕνα 
δέσμιον, xiv. 12 (Demosth. Phil. 2.27 b.); ef. Hm. Vig. 746. 

6. To express an action commenced in time past but not com- 
pleted 1 (Schaef. Demosth. I. 337 and Plutarch. IV. 398; Poppo, 
Thue. II. 1.646; Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 282; Maetzner, Antiph. 

p- 220; Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 178) ; as, Luke i. 59 ἐκάλουν αὐτὸ 

... Ζαχαρίαν (the mother objects, and he is called John), Matt. 241 
iii. 14 ὁ δὲ Ιωάννης διεκώλυεν αὐτόν cf. vs. 15, Acts vii. 26 συνήλ- Sth oe 
λασσεν αὐτοὺς εἰς εἰρήνην (Moses) cf. vs. 27 (according to good 253 
Codd. [Sin. too], see Fritzsche de crit. conformat. p. 31). Similar MeL 
instances occur in Eurip. Iph. T. 360; Here. f. 437; Her. 1, 68; 
Thue. 2,5; Demosth. Mid. 396 b.; Xenoph. A. 4, 5,19; Mem. 1, 
2,29; Paus. 4,9, 4; ef. Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 337, note. On 

the other hand, Heb. xi. 17. (aposépepev) does not come under this 
head ; but Gal. i. 13 probably would, if πορθεῖν be rendered destroy; 

yet see my Com. in loc. 

d. Sometimes also in narration apparently for the Aorist, when 

events are described at which the narrator was present; as, Luke 
x. 18 ἐθεώρουν τὸν σατανᾶν ὡς ἀστραπὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πεσόντα. 
The narrative thus becomes more graphic and animated than it 285 
would be with the Aorist, which simply reports and confines within 
a single point of time; cf. also Acts xvi. 22 ἐκέλευον paPdifeww (οἵ, 
Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 620) they gave orders (while I was present) 
ete. (Mtth. 1117). Accordingly this may be referred to No. 1. 
Cf. Hm. Soph, Oed. C. p.76; Soph. Aj. p. 159; Poppo, Thue. I. 1.155; 
Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 225 ; Schoem. Plut. Agid. p. 84, 142; Mtth. 
1138; Bhdy. 373. In no case is it necessary to take this tense for 
the Pluperfect; (yet see Poppo, as above; Bornem. Xen. Anab. p. 5; 
Kriiger, Dion. H. p. 304). In Acts iv. 13 ἐθαύμαζον ἐπεγίνωσκόν 
τε αὐτοὺς, ὅτι σὺν τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἦσαν must be closely taken together: 
they marvelled and recognized (roused by their very wonder to more 
attentive observation) that, ete. Kiihnél is wrong, following Raphel, 
annot. Il. 37. 


In many passages Codd. vary between the Imperfect and the Aorist, e.g. 
Mark vi. 12; xiv. 70 (see Fr. in loc.), Acts vii. 31; viii. 17, as in Greek 
authors also the forms of these two tenses are often interchanged (cf. 


1 Hm. Soph. Aj. 1106: in eo, quod quis voluit facere, nec tamen perfecit, quod aptius 
adhiberi tempus potest, quam quod ab ea ipsa ratione nomen habet, imperfectum.? 
Cf. Mav. 112. 


270 § 40. THE TENSES. 


Boisson. Eunap. p. 431 and Philostr. her. p. 530), and sometimes differ 
very little in meaning (Schaef. Plutarch. IV. 346; Siebelis, Pausan. IV, 
290). It often depends on the writer whether he will regard the action 
as momentary or as continued, —as a point or a period in time, Kiihner 
1.14 (Matt. xxvi. 59 ἐζήτουν ψευδομαρτυρίαν ... καὶ οὐχ εὗρον, but Mark 
xiv. δῦ καὶ οὐχ εὕρισκον, cf. Matt. xix. 13 with Mark x. 13) ; and thus, 
particularly in (later) Greek writers, the Imperfect of verbs of saying, 
going, sending is not unfrequently used where the Aorist appeared to be 
requisite, Poppo, Thue. III. I. 570 sq.; Held, Plutarch. Tim. p. 484 sq. ; 
cf. Mark ii. 27; iv. 10; v. 18; vii. 17; x. 17; Luke iii. 7; vii. 36; viii. 
9,41; x.2; Acts iii. 3; ix. 21. 
The Imperfect and the Aorist are connected with appropriate distinction 
in Luke viii. 23 κατέβη λαῖλαψ... καὶ συνεπληροῦντο καὶ ἐκινδύνευον, xv. 28; 
Mark vii. 8 ; xi. 18; Jas. ii. 22; Matt. xxi. 8f.; Jno. vii. 14; xii, 138,17; 
xx. 3; Acts xi. 6f.; xxi.3 (Jno. i. 5); Philem. 18,14; 1 Cor. xi. 23 (in 
the same way the Imperfect and Perfect in 1 Cor. xiii. 11) cf. Thue. 7, 20, 
954 44; Xen. A. 3, 4,31; 5, 4,24; Plutarch. Agis 19; Arrian. Al. 2, 20, 3;1 
ith ed. Reisig, Soph. Oed. C. p. 254sq.; Stallb. Plat. Phaed. p.29; Ellendt, Arrian- 
242 Al. II. 67 sq. 
the. The Imperfect might appear to be put for the Present (yet see Mehl- 
286 horn, Anacr. p. 235 sq.; cf. Fuhr, Dicaearch. p. 156 sq.) in Col. iii. 18 
ὑποτάσσεσθε τοῖς ἀνδράσιν, ὡς ἀνῆκεν, ἐν κυρίῳ, ut par est, and in Eph. 
v. 4 (μὴ ὀνομαζέσθω ἐν ὑμῖν) αἰσχρότης ἢ μωρολογία ἢ εὐτραπελία, ἃ οὐκ 
ἀνῆκεν (immediately before, καθῶς πρέπει) var. But it must be rendered: 
ut oportebat, ut par erat, as was fit, ought to be (already hitherto), see 
Mitth. 1138; Bornegm. Schol. p. 181; for every such exhortation, strictly 
speaking, involves the assumption that what is enjoined has not hitherto 
been observed? (Krii. 150). Cf. 8 41 ἃ. 2. On Eph. as above, see ibid. 
In Matt. xxvii. 54 ἣν refers to one now dead: he was God’s Son. 


4. The Perrect is employed in strict accordance with its proper 
import, whenever the past is to be put into relation with the 
present ; that is, when something past is intended to be represented 
as something just now (in the present) completed: (J have com- 


1 The following passage is particularly instructive: Diod. S. Exc. Vat. p. 25, 9 sqq. 
ὃ Κροῖσος μετεπέμπετο ex τῆς Ἑλλάδος τοὺς ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ πρωτεύοντας... μετεπέμψατο δὲ 
καὶ Σόλωνα, ete. ΟἿ also Plat. Parmen. 1966. ταῦτα εἰπόντες ἐβαδίζομεν καὶ κατελάβομεν 
τὸν ᾿Αντιφῶντα οἴο., and from the LXX. Num. xxxiii. 38 f. ἀνέβη ‘Aapay καὶ ἀπέθανεν ..- 
᾿Ααρὼν ἦν τριῶν καὶ εἴκοσι καὶ ἑκατὸν ἐτῶν, ὅτε ἀπέθνησκεν. 

2 ΤῸ take ἀνῆκεν, as Huther does, for a Perfect with the meaning of the Present, is as 
unnecessary as it is grammatically inadmissible. Should καθῆκεν, πρυξῆκεν also be 
regarded as Perfects? Must then the Perfect ἧκα, elsewhere rare, have established itself 
just in these forms even in Attic? Besides, no passage can be adduced in which these 
words necessarily have the meaning of a Present, — provided only a reader acquires the 
power of keeping the German mode of thought subordinate to the Greek. 








§ 40, THE TENSES. 271 


manded, my command is at present one previously given).1_ Here 
the result of the action is usually, but not necessarily (Krii. 151), 
conceived of as permanent. The following instances are especially 
instructive: Luke xiii. 2 δοκεῖτε, ὅτε of Γαλιλαῖοι οὗτοι ἁμαρτωλοὶ 
παρὰ πάντας ... ἐγένοντο, ὅτι τοιαῦτα πεπόνθασιν that these 
Galileans were sinners because they have suffered, i.e. suffered not 
merely once or in time past (that would be the Aor.), but that they 
stand recorded among the historical examples of those who have 
been cut off by (a violent) death; iv. 6 ὅτι ἐμοὶ παραδέδοται 
(ἡ ἐξουσία) i.e. 1am in possession of it, after having received it, 
commissam habeo potestatem (the Aorist would denote ἐξ was 
delivered to me, which would leave it uncertain whether the pos- 


session of it still continued) ; v. 32 οὐκ ἐλήλυθα καλέσαι δικαίους 955 
Iam not here (on earth) in order to, etc. (in Matt. ix. 13 in nar- th eb 
rative style: οὐκ ἦλθον I came not, was not sent), ef. vii. 20, 50; 243 


Rom. vii. 2 ἡ ὕπανδρος γυνὴ τῷ ζῶντι ἀνδρὶ δέδεται νόμῳ is bound 
(accordingly belongs to), Gal. ii. 7 πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον con- 
creditum mihi habeo, etc. (his apostolic functions continue, he is 
still in the exercise of them), likewise 1 Thess. ii. 4 καθὼς Sedoxt- 
μάσμεθα ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ. πιστευθῆναι τὸ εὐωγγέλιον, 1 Cor. xi. 15 ἡ 
κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται (γυναικί) she has (by a fixed arrange- 
ment of nature) hair for, etc., Heb. x. 14 μιᾷ προςφορᾷ τετελείωκεν 
eis τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους (where the contrast μιᾷ ... τετε- 
λείωκεν must not be overlooked), Jno. xix. 22 ὃ γέγραφα, γέγραφα, 
Mark x. 40; xi. 21; xvi.4; Luke xiii. 12; Jno. vii. 19, 22; viii. 
33 ; xiii. 12;? xv. 24; xix.30; xx. 21; Acts viii. 14; Rom. iii. 21; 
v.2; ix. 6; 1 Cor. ii. 11; iv. 4; vii. 14f.; 2 Cor. iii. 10; vi. 11; 
Col. ii. 14; iii. 3; Heb. i. 4; iii. 3; vii. 6,14; viii. 6,13; ix. 18, 


Gth ed. 


287 


26; xii. 2; 1Jno.v.9f.; 3 Jno. 12; 1 Pet. iv. 1; Rev. iii, 17.-+ 


Hence in quotations from the O.T. prophecies the very frequent 


use of γέγραπται, or κεχρημάτισται Heb. viii. 5, or εἴρηκε Heb. i. 18 ; 
iv. 4, etc.3 


1 Hm. emend. rat. p. 186 : γέγραφα tempus significat praeteritum terminatum prae- 
senti tempore ita, ut res, quae perfecto exprimitur, nunc peracta dicatur, illudque jam, 
peractam rem esse, praesens sit. Poppo in his Progr. Emendanda et supplenda ad 
Matthiaci gram. gr. (Frkf. on the Oder, 1832) p. 6, thus defines the nature of the Perfect : 
actionem plane praeteritam, quae aut nunc ipsum seu modo finita est aut per effectus 
suos durat, notat. 

ἢ Γινώσκετε, τί πεποίηκα ὑμῖν ; where the finished action (ua) is represented, 
according to its symbolical import, as continuing its influence down to the present. 
Cf. xv. 18. 

8 Likewise in 2 Cor. xii. 9 εἴρηκέ μοι" ἀρκεῖ σοι ἡ χάρις μου the Perfect refers to a 
Statement (of the Lord’s) which was to be expressed as not metely having been made, 


αἱ 
aad 
_ 
é 

{ ; 


272, 840. THE TENSES. 


We find the Perfect and Aorist joined together (ef. Weber, 
Demosth. 480) in Luke iv. 18 ἔχρισέ με εὐαγγελίσασθαι, ἀπέσταλκέ 
με κηρῦξαι he anointed me ... and hath sent me (the former viewed 
as what took place once; the latter, as still present in its effects), 
Mark xv. 44 Πιλᾶτος ἐθαύμασεν εἰ ἤδη τέθνηκε" Kal... ἐπηρώτησεν 
αὐτόν, εἰ πάλαι ἀπέθανε (the latter referring to the event, the act 
of dying ; the former, to the effect, the being dead), Heb. ii. 14 
ἐπεὶ τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκε σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος, Kal αὐτὸς 
μετέσχε (at his incarnation) τῶν αὐτῶν, 1 Cor. xv. 4 ὅτε ἐτά βη 
(an event that once took place, long past) καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται τῇ 
τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ (continues in its effects in the new life of Jesus), 
2 Cor. i. 19; ix. 2; Acts xxi. 28; Jno. viii. 40; iv. 38; xiii. 3; 
1 Jno. i. 1.1 Characteristic are the following passages also: Col. 
i. 16 ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα (the act of creation) ... τὰ 
πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ Kal eis αὐτὸν ἔκτισται (doctrinal view of the 
completed and now existing creation), Jno. xvii. 14 ; xx. 23 (Mey); 
1 Cor. xv. 27; Col. iii. 3. 

The Perfect simply for the Aorist in narration occurs in Rev. 
v. T ἦλθε καὶ εἴληφε (τὸ βιβλίον) without var., viii. 5. The 
Perfect is thus used purely with the signification of an Aorist 
particularly in later writers (especially the Scholiasts, Poppo, Thue. 


256 II. Il. 763), Schaef. Demosth. I. 468; Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. I. 
th οὐ, 321 sq. (Lips.); Lehrs, quaestion. epic. p. 274; Index to Petr. 
944 Patric. in the Bonn edition, p. 647; Bhdy. 379. Less remarkable 
6th el. is 2 Cor. xi. 25... ἔλαβον, ἐῤῥαβδίσθην ... ἐχλιθάσθην ... ἐναυάγησα, 
288 νυχθήμερον ἐν τῷ βυθῷ πεποίηκα, Heb. xi. 28 πίστει πεποίηκε 


τὸ πάσχα καὶ τὴν πρόςχυσιν τοῦ αἵματος (nothing but Aorists 
precede and follow) ef. also verse 17. In such enumerations of 
detached facts, it was a matter of indifference whether the Aorist 
or the Perfect should be employed, they are both alike suitable 
(1 was stoned, I suffered shipwreck, I have spent a day, etc.). In 
Mark iii. 26 nobody will take μεμέρισται after ἀνέβη for an Aorist 
because in vs. 25 the Aor. μερισθῇ occurs. 

The Perfect is used for the Present, 

ἃ. Only in so far as the Perfect denotes an action or state whose 
commencement and occasion were completed in time past (Hm. 
Vig. 748) ; as, Jno. xx. 29 ὅτι ἑώρακάς με, πεπίστευκως, where the 
origin of his (still existing faith) is intended’to be indicated, iii. 18 ; 


but as still in force (he has given me an answer, and I must rest satisfied with it). I 
do not see what Riickert could here find strange. Meyer is now right. 
1 Cf. Lucian. dial. αἱ 19, 1 ἀφώπλισας αὐτὸν καὶ νενίκηκα. 








§40. THE TENSES. 273 


xi. 27; v.45 Μωὺῦσῆς, εἰς ὃν } AT ίκατε, in whom you have (placed 
your hope) hoped, and still hope (in quo repositam habetis spem 
vestram). Similar instances are, 2 Cor. i. 10 εἰς ὃν ἠλπέκαμεν, 
1 Tim. vi. 17; Jude6. As to ἑώρακα Jno. ix. 37, etc., see note 
further on. 2 Tim. iv. 8 ἠγαπηκότες τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ who have 
loved, and therefore now love. The Pluperf. of such verbs has 
naturally the signification of the Imperfect, Luke xvi. 20. To 
this head we must by no means refer Jno. i. 84 κἀγὼ ἑώρακα καὶ 
μεμαρτύρηκα, where the latter Perfect appears to denote that the 
testimony concerning Christ given by John at the baptism stands 
complete, continues firm and valid: I have seen and have testified. 
Essentially the same explanation applies to the Perfects in Heb. 
vii. 6 (9), where it is manifest that more than a mere fact is in- 
tended to be related. 

b. After clauses which convey a supposition (εἰ, ἐάν with a Fut. 
or Aor., seldom with a Particip.) to express an action still future, 
but viewed in this event as (occurring forthwith and so) wholly 
completed ;1 as, Eurip. El. 686 εἰ παλαισθεὶς πτῶμα θανάσιμον 
πεσεῖ, τέθνη κα ἐγώ, Soph. Philoct. 75 and Liv. 21, 43 si eundem 
animum habueritis, vicimus, cf. Poppo, Thuc. 1. 1.156; Ast, Plat. 
Polit. p. 470; Hm. Aristoph. nub. p. 175sq.; Matthiae, Eurip. 
Med. p. 512 and Gr. 1125 f.; Krii. 152. In the N.T. see Rom. 
xiv. 23 ὁ διακρινόμενος, ἐὰν φάγῃ, κατακέκριται 18 condemned, 
the sentence of condemnation has been (at the same moment) and 257 
remains pronounced against him, he lies under condemnation, ™ δ. 
iv. 14; 1 Cor. xiii. 1; 2 Pet. ii. 19, 20, and with a Participle Jno. 289 
iii. 18 ὁ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται, Rom. xiii. 8. On the other ΄" 
hand, the Perfect is not used for the Fut. in Jno. v. 24 μεταβέβηκεν 
ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου eis τὴν ζωὴν ; the passage has no reference at all to 
a future event, but to something that has already occurred 245 
(ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον), cf. 1 Jno. iii. 14; Liicke, Comment. II. 52. bth ed 
Further, in Jno. xvii. 10 Christ uses the word δεδόξασμαι prolep- 
tically in reference to the disciples, who already believe, cf. xvi. 11; 
but in xiv. 7 καὶ ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι γινώσκετε αὐτὸν καὶ ἑωράκατε αὐτόν must 
be rendered: from henceforth ye know him and have seen him, 
not with Kiihnél ; eum mox accuratius cognoscetis et quasi oculis 
videbitis, cf. Demosth. Lacrit. 597 a. ἀνθρώπῳ, ὃν ἡμεῖς οὔτε y ive 
σκομεν οὔθ᾽ ἑωράκαμεν πώποτε. See, further, Liicke in loc. 

1 The N. T. does not contain a clear instance of the Hebrew prophetic Perfect ( Gesen. 
Lg. 764), which in the Sept. is usually rendered by a Future. Akin to it is the usage 
of the Greek augurs, who begin with the Fut. but continue in the Aorist, Iliad. 4, 


158 sqq.; Pind. Pyth. 4, 56; Isthm. 5, 51, see Bockh not. crit. p. 462. 
35 


914 840. THE TENSES. 


In Jas. v.2 ὃ πλοῦτος ὑμῶν σέσηπε, καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια ὑμῶν σητόβρωτα 
γέγονεν the Perf. is not put for the Pres. or Fut.; but the case indicated 
by the Apostle in ταλαιπωρ. ὑμῶν τ. ἐπερχομ. is viewed as already present, 
and consequently the σήπειν of the riches as already completed. In Jno. 
Xvii. 22 δέδωκα does not signify tribuam ; Christ contemplates his life as 
terminated, his disciples have already assumed his place. In Luke x. 19 
δέδωκα and δίδωμι would be equally appropriate ; Tdf. justly prefers the 
former. 

That the Perf. is used also for the Pluperf. (which is not impossible), 
Haab p. 95 erroneously attempts to prove by Jno. xii. 7 εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ 
ἐνταφιασμοῦ τετήρηκεν αὐτό ; for here τετήρηκεν is to be regarded as strictly 
a Perfect (she has kept it, and accordingly uses it now), since Jesus means 
figuratively to represent ¢h’s anointing as that which prepares him for the 
grave. The reading, however, is doubtful. 

That the Perfects (and Aorists) of many verbs have inherently, and 
according to established usage, the signification of the Present, is well 
known; and is explained by the (inchoative) primary meaning of these 
verbs (Fr. Rom. I. 254; Bengel on Rom. iii. 23) ; as, κέκτημαι 1 possess, 

290 from κτάομαι 7 acquire; κεκοίμημαι (1 have fallen asleep) J am asleep, from 
κοιμάομαι fall asleep ; otda I know, from εἴδω I see; ἕστηκα I stand, from 
ἵστημι place, properly, I have placed myself (hence also 2 Thess. ii. 2 
ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ Xp. cf. Palair. in loc., Rom. ix. 19 ris ἀνθέστηκε who 
resists him? cf. xiii. 2; 2 Tim. iv. 6 ἐφέστηκε) ; likewise ἔοικα Jas. 1. 6, 23. 
The Plup. of such verbs then naturally becomes equivalent to an Imperfect, 

958 as εἱστήκεισαν Matt. xii. 46, ἤδειν Jno. ii. 9; xx. 9, ete. Also κέκραγα from 

ith οἱ, κράζειν has the meaning of a Present (Jno. i. 15), see Bttm. IL. 57; Bhdy. 
279, and ἑώρακα sometimes signifies: Z (have got a sight, and) see Jno. 
ix. 37; 1 Jno. iv. 20. But in Phil. iii. 7 ἥγημαι (Mtth. 1139) is to be 
taken as properly a Preterite antithetical to ἡγοῦμαι verse 8. 

246 Onthe other hand the Present ἥκω means, J have come, I am here (Mtth. 

bth ed. 1136) Jno. ii. 4; iv. 47; 1 Jno. vy. 20, and so ἀκούω may be sometimes 
rendered by audisse 1 Cor. xi. 18 (Xen. A. 5, 5,8; Mem. 3, 5,9; Plat. 
Gorg.503c.; Philostr. Apoll. 2,8; see Lucian. fug. 7; Ast, Plat. legg. p. 9.sq.3 
Franke, Demosth. p. 62). This, however, is the case only when the hear- 
ing (in effect) continues; as we too say: J hear thou art sick, cf. 2 Thess. 
iii. 11 and Schoem. Plutarch. Cleom. p. 246.2 To denote the act of hear- 


1 In the N. T. this verb, in other tenses besides the Perfect, is occasionally translated 
incorrectly by possess. Luke xviii. 12 should be rendered, of all J acquire, quae mihi 
redeunt ; and xxi. 19 by perseverance acquire, or you will acquire, your souls ; they will 
then for the first time become your true property, not to be taken away. Schott now 
explains the passage rightly. As to 1 Thess. iv. 4, see de Wette. Yet κτῶμαι appears 
to signify possideo in Aesop. 142,2. As to κοιμῶνται 1 Cor. xi. 30, which also is usually 
considered as equivalent to κεκοίμηνται, see above, 3 6, p. 267. 

2 Just so πυνθάνομαι I understand, Demosth. Calipp. p. 719 ¢. ete. 














840. THE TENSES. 275 


ing completed in time past, a Greek must say ἀκήκοα. ᾿Απέχω, in the 
same way, may be translated by accepisse, Matt. vi. 2, 5,16; Phil. iv. 18, 
it is properly, however, like weghaben in German (have already, or in full, 
received), Wyttenbach, Plutarch. Mor. 11. 124; Palair. p. 25. 


5. The Aorist (E. A. Fritsch, de aoristi viac potest. Fref. 1837. 
4to.; H. Schmidt, der griech. Aorist ins. Verhaltnissen zu ἃ. ubrigen 
Zeitformen. Halle, 1845. 8vo.) is used, 

a. In narration for the Pluperfect (Poppo, Thue. I. I. 157; Jacob, 
Lucian. Toxar. p. 98 and Lucian. Alex. p. 106; Kihner, Gr. I. 
10: 

a. in subordinate clauses specifying time; as, Acts v. 24 ὡς 
ἤκουσαν τ. λόγους ... διηπόρουν, Luke vii. 1 ἐπειδὴ ἐπλήρωσεν τὰ 
ῥήματα... εἰςῆχθεν (ii. 39; xxii. 66 ; Jno. vi, 16 ; ix. 18 ; xiii. 423 
xxi. 9; Acts xxi. 26), ef. Thue. 1, 102 οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι... ἐπειδὴ ave- 
χώρησαν ... ξύμμαχοι ἐγένοντο, Aesch. ep. 1. p. 191 ο. ; Mdv. 113 f. 

A. in relative clauses ; as, Acts i. 2° ἐντειλάμενος τοῖς ἀποστόλοις 
ods ἐξελέξατο, ix. 35 [Matt. ii. 9 ὃν εἶδον, xxvii. 55 αἵτινες ἠκο- 
χούθησαν} Jno. xi. 30; iv. 45,46; Luke xix,15; xxiv. 1; Mdvy.+ 
114. Thus probably are the Aorists to be rendered also in a clause 
with ὅτε, Jno. vi. 22; see the expositors. The reason of this usage 
is, that the Greeks (who in such cases seldom or never employ the 
Pluperfect, Bhdy. 380) viewed the occurrence merely as past, not 
in relation to another occurrence also past. The Aor. is thus used 
in independent clauses, when they contain supplementary remarks, 291 
Matt. xiv. 8 f. Whether this also applies to Jno. xviii. 24, cannot 
be decided on grammatical grounds. In Matt. xxvi. 48 ἔδωκεν is 
probably not to be rendered as a Pluperf. (Fr.), see BCrus. and 
Mey. On the contrary, the Pluperf. is regularly employed in such 
clauses even in the N. T.: Jno. xi. 19, 57; viii. 20; Acts ix. 21; 
Mark xiv. 44; Matt. vii. 25. 


With very great want of judgment Haab S. 95 (cf. also Pasor 5. 235) 
refers to this head a number of other passages, in which either the Aor. 959 
retains its original import, or is owing to a somewhat different account of Τὰ ed 
one Evangelist which must not be arbitrarily harmonized with the others’ - 
narrative ; as, Jno. xviii. 12 συνέλαβον τὸν Ἰησοῦν. According to the other 
Evangelists (Matt. xxvi. 50f.; Mark xiv. 46) the seizing and binding 
preceded Peter’s striking with his sword. John, however, may wish to 
imply that Peter interposed with his sword at the moment when the guard 
were laying hands on Jesus. On Matt. xxvii. 87 καὶ ἐπέθηκαν ἐπάνω τῆς 
κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ τὴν αἰτίαν αὐτοῦ γεγραμμένην de Wette very appropriately 
remarks: “This, as respects the matter of fact, is to be considered as a 247 
Plup. — (though we must admit it to be possible that the narrator of this, ‘th αἰ, 


276 8 40, THE TENSES. 


not himself an eye-witness, may have supposed that the affixing of this 
superscription did not take place until this time), but according to the 
language it is a simple preterite.. The narrator here does not observe the 
order of time. That the Evangelist does not exactly follow the order of 
time is obvious besides from this, that after he has made the soldiers sit 
down to watch Jesus, he proceeds ys. 38 to introduce the crucifixion of the 
two robbers : τότε σταυροῦνται, κιτιλ. Should this also be regarded as a 
Plup.?” In Mark iii. 16 ἐπέθηκε τῷ Σίμωνι ὄνομα Πέτρον is not to be 
translated by imposuerat ; for Mark had not yet recorded the ciréumstance, 
and it must not be thus as a matter of course supplied from John (i. 43), 
Also in Acts vii. 5 ἔδωκεν is not to be taken as a Plup.; this is manifest 
from the antithesis: he gave not... but promised. It seems equally un- 
necessary to take the Aor. as Plup. in Acts iv. 4; viii. 2; xx. 12. As 
to Mark xvi. 1 comparéd with Luke xxiii. 56, see Fr. 

That the Aorist stands for the Perfect cannot be shown with certainty 
from any passage. Luke i. 1 ἐπειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ... ἔδοξε κἀμοί 
must be taken in the narrative style: as many undertook... JI too de- 
termined, etc. So also ii. 48 τέκνον, τί ἐποίησας ... ἐζητοῦμέν oe. More, 
plausible instances are the following: xiv. 18 ἀγρὸν ἠγόρασα, 19 ζεύγη βοῶν 
yyopaca etc., Phil. iii. 12 οὐχ ὅτι ἤδη ἔλαβον ἢ ἤδη τετελείωμαι, Jno. xvii. 4 
ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὸ ἔργον ἐτελείωσα, etc. But in all these the 
action is exhibited merely as come to pass, as occupying a single point of 

292 time past, simply as gone by, (in Luke, as above, in contrast with a present 
action) I bought a field, a yoke of oxen, etc. In Phil. as above in particular, 
ἔλαβον seems to denote merely the attaining of the goal as an honorable 
achievement, while rereA. denotes its consequences. Likewise in Rom. 

xiv. 9; Rev. ii. 8 the Aorists are simply narrative, and in reference to the 
death of Christ the Perfect could not even be used here. In Mark xi. 17 
the Perf. is now in the text; but the Aorist also would be appropriate, see 
Fr. As to Greek usage, cf. Béckh, Pind. III. 185; Schaef. Eurip. Phoen. 
p- 15; Mtth. 1118. It often depends on the writer which of the two 

260 tenses he will use, as the difference between them is sometimes very 

Τὰ el. slight, cf. Xen. Mem. 1, 6,14; Dion. H. IV. 2320; Alciphr. 3,46. (The 
Codd. occasionally vary —as well those of the Greek authors, see e.g. 
Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 434, 566, as those of the N. T. — between the Aorist 
and the Perfect, e.g. Jno. vi. 32; 1 Cor. ix. 15).? 


1 Markland (explicatt. vett. aliq. loc. in the Leipzig reprint of his edition of Eurip. 
Suppl. p. 326) erroneously refers to this head Matt. xxviii. 17 of δὲ ἐδίστασαν also, 
on which see Valcken. annot. crit. p. 350. 

2 Ifin Matt. xxi. 20 πῶς be taken as an exclamation (quam), ἐξήρανται might have 
been expected instead of ἐξηράνθη, as in Mark xi. 21 according to good Codd. But the 
latter passage is not entirely parallel, and Matt. xxi. 20 is probably to be rendered : 
how did the fig-tree wither suddenly? They desire an explanation of what (according to 
this Evangelist’s narrative) had taken place before their eyes. The disciples therefore , 
allude to the fact of ξηραιν., and not to the consequences, . 


§ 40. THE TENSES. QTT 


b. It is only in appearance that the Aorist is used for the Future 248 
(Hm. Vig. p. 147. cf. above 4.b.),! e.g. Jno. xv. 6 ἐὰν μή τις μείνῃ Oth ed. 
ἐν ἐμοί, ἐβλήθη ἔξω ὡς τὸ κλῆμα in such case (should that have 
happened) he (was) ts cast away, not he will be cast away (the not 
abiding has this as its instantaneous consequence: whoever has 
severed himself from Christ, resembles a branch broken off and 
thrown away. With this βληθῆναι the Presents συνάγουσιν etc. are 
connected). Of. as to this passage Hm. de emend. p. 192 sq. and 
Vig. as above. Rev. x. 7 ὅταν μέλλῃ σαλπίζειν, καὶ ἐτελέσθη τὸ 
μυστήριον, in the mouth of the angel describing the future: then is 
finished the mystery, 1 Cor. vii. 28. Cf. Eurip. Med. 78 ἀπωλό- 
pec ἄρ᾽, εἰ κακὸν προςοίσομεν νέον παλαιῷ, Plat. Gorg. 484 a. 
The Aor. never occurs in this sense without an antecedent clause. 

In Jno. xvii. 18 ἀπέστειλα is 1 sent them forth (which took place 
when the apostles were chosen). In xiii. 31 Jesus says: viv ἐδοξά- 
σθη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, the traitor Judas having gone away and as 
it were already completed his treason. In Mark iil. 21 ἐξέστη has 
the force of the Present insanit, cf. vs. 22. Jude 14 is a verbatim 
quotation from the (Greek) book of Enoch, and the Aor. represents 
the coming of Christ as having already taken place. In Rom. 
viii. 30 ἐδόξασε is used, because he in reference to whom God has 
zompleted the δωκαιοῦν ‘has also already obtained from God the 293 
δοξάζεσθαι, (though the δόξα as an actual possession will not be 
imparted to him until later). 


1. Nowhere in the N. T. does the Aorist express what ¢s wont to be 
done (Schaef. Demosth. I. 247 ; Wex, Antig. I. 326; Mdv. 110). In Luke 
i. 51 God’s μεγαλεῖα (vs. 49) are spoken of as already accomplished, only 
the respective parallel members must not be taken too rigidly in a historical 
sense. In Jno. villi. 29 οὐκ ἀφῆκέ pe μόνον ὃ πατήρ means the Father left 
me not alone (on the earth), that is, he granted me, besides having sent me 
(πέμψας), also (hitherto) his unceasing aid. In 1 Jno. ii. 27 it is equally 
unnecessary to take ἐδίδαξεν as denoting wont to teach; Liicke in his 2d 
ed. has correctly explained the passage. As to Rom. viii. 30 see above. 
Heb. x. 5, 6 is a verbatim quotation from Ps. xl. applied to the fact of 261 
Christ’s εἰςερχ. εἰς τὸν κόσμον. Heb. i. 9 (Sept.) ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην ete. Τὰ ob 
contains the reason for the annexed διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέ σε ὃ θεός, and the 
former is as strict an Aorist as the latter. Sooner might Jas. i. 11 
ἀνέτειλεν ὃ ἥλιος σὺν τῷ καύσωνι καὶ €Enpave τὸν χόρτον etc. be referred 


to this head (cf. 1 Pet. i. 24), as has already been done by Piscator; but 


1In 1 Cor. xv. 49 ἐφορέσαμεν might seem to stand for the Fut. Perf. ; but Paul places 
himself in the point of view of the Parousia, and speaks in the narrative style of the life 
passed on earth. _ 





278 840. THE TENSES. 


the Aorists are narrative (representing the fact as having taken place), 
and taken together indicate the rapid succession of the events: the sun 
rose, and (immediately) withered etc. (Bornem. Xen. Apol. p. 53), — 
scarcely was the sun risen, when it withered. Moreover, passages such 
as Eph. v. 29 form the transition to this use of the Aorist, which can be 
easily traced to the primary import of the tense (Hm. de emend. rat. 

949 187). In Jas. i. 24 κατενόησεν ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀπελήλυθε καὶ εὐθέως ἐπελάθετο 

δι} οἱ, ὁποῖος ἣν neither the Aorist nor the Perfect is put for the Present, but the 
case supposed for illustration in vs. 23 is assumed as matter of fact, and 
the Apostle falls into the strain of narration. 

2. Quite unnecessarily Pott maintains that in 1 Cor. ix. 20 ἐγενόμην 
τοῖς ᾿Ιουδαίοις ὡς ᾿Ιουδαῖος the Aor. is used for the Present. The Apostle 
states how he has hitherto acted. _Heumann on 1 Cor. iv. 18, and many 
expositors on Jas. ii. 6 ἠτιμάσατε (which even Gebser renders by the 
Present), have made the same mistake. Tholuck’s present view of Jno. 
xv. 8 ἐδοξάσθη is more correct than his former opinion; the Aorist is 
proleptic, as in Eph. ii.6; Rom. viii. 30. In Matt. iii. 17 (xii. 18; xvii. 5; 
2 Pet. i. 17) Sept. the Aorist εὐδόκησα may be taken naturally: my good 
pleasure fixed upon him, I took him into favor; see Mey. Hm. Vig. 
746, No. 209, treats merely of poetic usage, and his remarks have with 
great discrimination been rendered still more clear and precise by Moller 
in the Zeitschrift f. Alterth.-Wiss. 1846, No. 134-136. 

In epistles ἔγραψα, as is well known, is used for γράφω, like scripsi in 
Latin, in reference to the epistle which is just being written. In the same 
way ἔπεμψα mist is used, out of regard for the fact that to the receiver of 

294 the epistle the πέμπω has become an ἔπεμψα. As to the latter, compare 
in the N.T. Acts xxiii. 30; Phil. ii. 28, ἀνέπεμψα Philem. 11, probably 
also συνεπέμψαμεν 2 Cor. viii. 18 (Demosth. ep. 3; Alciphr. 3, 30 and 41) ; 
as similar, ἠβουλήθην 2 Jno. 12. On the other. hand, not even ἔγραψα in 
1 Cor. v. 11 can be quoted as an instance of that use. This Aorist, rather, 
refers in all cases either to a previous epistle (1 Cor. v. 9; 2 Cor. ii. 3, 4, 9; 
vii. 12; 3 Jno. 9), or to an epistle already brought to its conclusion (Rom. 
xy. 15; Philem. 19; Gal. vi. 11; 1 Pet. v.12), or even to a series of 
verses just finished (1 Cor.ix.15; 1 Jno. ii. 21,26; v.18). Foran epistle 
in course of being written γράφω is more usual, 1 Jno. ii. 12, 13; 1 Cor. 
iv. 14; xiv. 37; 2 Cor. xiii. 10, ete. As to 1 Jno. ii. 18 f. see Liicke. 
In the Greek writers also this use of the Aor. (or Perf.) for the Pres. is 
not carefully observed ; cf. Diog. L. 7,9. See Wyttenbach, Plut. Moral. 
I. 231 sq. Lips. 

962 3. Lastly, the Aor. is not employed de conatu’ (Kiihnol) in Mark ix. 17 

ith al. ἤνεγκα τὸν υἱόν pov. These words denote: J brought my son to thee (and 
I present him now to thee). That ἐξῆλθε Jno. xi. 44 need not be thus 


1 Schaef. Plut. IV. 398 declares himself against Hm. Soph. Aj. 1105. Yet cf. Lm. 
Iphig. Taur. p. 109. 





840. THE TENSES. 279 


explained, has been perceived by Kiihnél himself ; and Tholuck very prop- 
erly takes no notice of such an interpretation. On Matt. xxv. 1 see Mey. 


6. The Fururg! does not always denote pure and actual futurity, 
but sometimes what is possible (as futurity and possibility are 250 
closely related) and in fact what may or should take place (ethical ‘te 
possibility), Hm. Vig. p. 747; Jacob, Lucian. Tox. p. 134; Krii. 
156. This is particularly the case in questions. Owing, however, to 
the great resemblance between the Future and the Aor. Subjunctive 
and the variations in MSS., the passages in question are not all 
established. Luke xxii. 49 κύριε, εἰ πατάξομεν ἐν μαχαίρᾳ are we to 
smite, etc.? (strictly, shall we— with thy permission — smite, wilt 
thou allow us to smite? οἵ, Eurip. lo 771 εἴπωμεν ἢ συγῶμεν ; ἢ τί 
Spacopev;), Rom. x. 14 πῶς οὖν ἐπικαλέσονται, εἰς ὃν οὐκ ἐπίστευ- 
σαν ; how can they call, etc. ? iii. 6 ἐπεὶ πῶς κρινεῖ ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ; 
Jno. νἱ. 68 ; Matt. xii. 26; 1 Tim.iii. 5 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 10 (Plat. Lys. 213 ο. 
τί οὖν δὴ χρησόμεθα, Lucian. Tox. 47 πῶς οὖν... χρησόμεθα τοῖς 
παροῦσι). On the other hand, in Matt. vii. 24 ὁμοιώσω retains the 
simple force of the Fut., as does τολμήσω ἴῃ Rom.xv.18. In Rom. 
v. T something is expressed which is never likely to take place. 
1 Cor. viii. 8 is similar. In Rom. vi. 1 and 15 the Subjunctive is 295 
the preferable reading, as also in Luke iii. 10; Jno. vi. 5; but in 
Rom. vi. 2 the authority for ζήσομεν predominates, and the Future 
here forms a distinct contrast to the Aor. ἀπεθάνομεν. Mark iv. 13 
and 1 Cor. xiv. 7 are strict Futures. In Matt. vii. 16 ἐπυγνώσεσθε 
does not contain a precept (ye shall), but a simple reference to 
what time itself will show: by their fruits ye will know them (as 
ye observe them, in the course of your observations). In Rom. 
vi. 14 the Fut. expresses an assurance and is essentially connected 
with the Apostle’s reasoning. 1 Cor. xv. 29 ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν 
οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν is probably to be rendered: else 
Gf Christ is not risen) what will they do (what are they about to do, 
what do they purpose) who get themselves baptized over the dead (are 
therefore in such case deluded)? The Pres. ποιοῦσιν is manifestly 
a correction. ‘The phrase τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν always means quid dice- 
mus? not quid dicamus. 1 Cor. xiv. 15 προςεύξομαι τῷ πνεύματι, 
προςεύξομαι δὲ καὶ νοΐ expresses not a resolution (προςεύξωμαι is 263 
probably only a correction), but a Christian maxim which the be- [ἢ 


1 The 3d Fut. Pass. κεκράξομαι occurring once (Luke xix. 40) in not a few Codd. 
stands for the 150 Fut., which in this verb is not in use, and has not the meaning which 
this form has in other cases (Mtth. 1118 f.; Mdy. 114; Janson, de graeci serm. paulo 
post futuro. Rastenburg, 1844. 4to.). 


280 840. THE TENSES. 


liever intends to follow, and is more decided than the Subjunctive. 
In 2 Cor. iii. 8 ἔσται refers to future δόξα. (As to such phrases as 
θέλεις ἑτοιμάσομεν and τί αἱρήσομαι οὐ γνωρίζω, where the Subjunc- 
tive also would be suitable, see ὃ 41 a. 4, p. 285 and b. 4, p. 299.) 
In the phrase ἐρεῖ tus dicat aliquis 1 Cor. xv. 35; Jas. ii. 18, the 
Fut. denotes a merely supposable case. But the Greek idiom is 
here more precise than the Latin: some one will say, I foresee it, 
I expect nothing else. So ἐρεῖς οὖν dices igitur Rom. ix. 19; xi. 19. 
Heb. xi. 82 ἐπιλείψει με διηγούμενον ὁ χρόνος is decidedly to be taken 
as a Future: time (1 foresee) will fail me (deficiet' me tempus, 
Philostr. her. p. 686 ἐπιλείψει we ἡ φωνή, cf. also longum est nar- 
251 rare for the German-Latin idiom longum esset ete.).1_ Also in Luke 
bth el. xi. 5 τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἕξει φίλον καὶ πορεύσ eT as πρὸς αὐτὸν μεσονυκτίου 
the Fut. is appropriately used ; take away the interrovative form 
and the ordinary Future remains: none of you will go to his 
friend at midnight, such importunity will never take place. Lastly, 
in Matt. v. 39, 41; xxiii. 12 the notion of possibility is connected 
rather with ὅςτις than with the Fut.; and in Jas. ii. 10 the best 
Codd. [Sin. also] have the Subjunctive. (It would be altogether 
incongruous to take the Future as indicating nothing more than a 
wishin Rom. xvi. 20; Phil. iii. 15; iv. 7, 9,19; Matt. xvi. 22.) 


On the use of the Fut. for the Imperative, see § 43, 5, p. 315. 
296 Some interpreters have preposterously asserted that the Fut. is used for 
+ the Preterite in Rev. iv.9 ὅταν δώσουσι τὰ ζῶα δόξαν... τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ 
τοῦ θρόνου ... πεσοῦνται οἱ εἴκοσι τέσσαρες πρεσβύτεροι, etc.; but the passage 
must be rendered: when (as often as) the beasts shall give glory ... shall 
fall down. On the other hand, the Fut., in expressing general truths, 
sometimes very nearly assumes the import of the Present; as, Gal. ii. 16 
ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ, Rom. 111. 20: this is a rule which 
(since the introduction of Christianity) will hold true in the world. Sub- 
stantially so also in Rom. iii. 80 ἐπείπερ εἷς ὁ θεός, ὃς δικαιώσει περιτομὴν 
ἐκ πίστεως etc., where δικαιοῦν is regarded as an act of God which in the 
Christian method of salvation will be constantly thus realized. In Luke 
i. 87 ἀδυνατήσει is used, in an allusion to the O.T., of that which belongs 
to no particular time, but will always hold true (Theoer. 27, 9; see Hm. 
emend. rat. p. 197), ef. Rom. vii. 3. But in Matt. iv. 4 ζήσεται after Deut. 

viii. 8 denotes rather a rule established by God: shall live. 

Note 1. The connection of different tenses by καί (Poppo, Thue. 1. I. 
274 sq.; Reisig, Oed. Col. 419 ; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 700; Stallb. Plat. 
Euthyphr. p. 59 a.), which has already been illustrated incidentally in the 


1 The case is different when the thought is expressed in the Optative with ἄν, as in 
Dion. H. 10, 2086 ἐπιλείποι ἄν με ὁ τῆς ἡμέρας χρόνος. 





§ 41. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 281 


above examples, is partly to be accounted for by the fact that when an 254 
author is writing without rigorous exactness any one of several tenses Τὰ ed, 
may be employed without difference in the sense; and is partly intentional 
(Heb. ii. 14; 1 Cor. x. 4; xv. 4; Jas. i. 24; Jno. iii. 16; Phil. iii. 7 sq.; 
1 Pet. iv. 6, etc.). The former, perhaps, is the case in Rev., as iii. 3; “ 
xi. 10; xii. 4; xvi. 21, etc. In none of these passages are the tenses used 
incorrect; and should any one discover something altogether extraordinary 
in such combinations (as e.g. Eichhorn, Einl. ins N. T. 11. 378), he would 
only betray his defective knowledge of the Greek language. See my 
exeget. Studien I. 147 f. 

Note 2. The tenses are used in the significations above elucidated for 
the most part only in the Indicative (and Participle) (Hm. emend. p. 189). 
In the other moods, particularly the Subjunctive, Optative, Imperative, the 
Aorist rarely denotes past time (1 Pet. iv. 6?), but generally retains, in 
distinction from the Present, only the notion of transientness or instanta- 
neousness (cf. Pres. and Aor. Jno. iii. 16) Hm. Vig. 748, without refer- 
ence to any definite time, Rost 587; Mdv. 109. 


841, THE INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE MOODS.' 959 

6th ed, 

1. According to Hermann, these moods are distinguished from 297 
each other as follows: The Indicative denotes what is actual, the 
Subjunctive and Optative what is possible merely : — the Subjunc- 
tive, what is objectively possible (the realization of which depends 
on circumstances) ;? the Optative, what is subjectively possible 
(simply conceived of, as e.g. a wish),? Hm. emend. rat. 1. 205 sqq.; 
ad Vig. 901 sq., more fully de particula ἄν p. T6sq.;* οἵ, also Schnei- 
der, Vorles. I. 230 Ὁ With Klotz, ad Devar., we have adhered to 


1 Cf. K. H. A. Lipsius, comm. de modorum usu in N. T. P. I. Lips. 1827. 8yo. 

2 “Tn conjunctivo sumitur res experientia comprobanda ...; conjunctivus est debere 
quid fieri intelligentis ac propterea exspectantis quid eveniat ” Hm. partic. ἄν p. 77. 

8 Klotz, Devar. II. 104: Optativus modus per se non tam optationis vim in se continet, 
quam cogitationis omnino, unde proficiscitur etiam omnis optatio. Hm. partic. ἄν 
p. 77: Optativus est cogitantis quid fieri, neque an fiat neque an possit fieri quaerentis. 

*P.77: Apertum est, in indicativo veritatem facti ut exploratam respici, in con- 
junctivo rem sumi experientia comprobandam, in optativo veritatis rationem haberi 
nullam, sed cogitationem tantummodo indicari. How Kiihner combines this distinction 
between the Subjunctive and Optative with an original temporal import of both cannot 
; be here explained in detail (Griech. Gr. IT. 87 f.). 
® In the following works views quite different from this are maintained ; W. Scheuerlein, 
tiber den Charakter des Modus in der gr. Sprache. Halle 1842. 410. (a Program). 
W. Baumiein, iiber die gr. Modi und die Partikeln κεν τι. ἄν. Heilbronn 1846. 8vo. (see 
Jahn, Jahrb. Bd. 47. 5. 353 f. and Zeitschr. f. Alterthumswiss. 1848. 104-106; 1849. 
30-33). Aken, Grundziige der Lehre von Tempus u. Modus im Griech. Giistrow 1850. 

36 


982 ὃ 4la. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 


265 this theory, as nothing in all respects better seems yet to have been 
‘th el. propounded ; — least of all by Madvig. 

In the N. T. these moods in their main distinctions, are employed 
with strict propriety (Hwiid to the contrary ;— whom Kihndél ad 
Acta p. T77 quotes with approval). Only it is noticeable that the 
Optative, as in the later Greek authors who do not aim at classic 
refinement, is partially set aside (more still than in Josephus), 
and in certain constructions is superseded by the Subjunctive.1 


298 | a. IN INDEPENDENT PROPOSITIONS. 


2. The use of the INDICATIVE in independent propositions is very 
253 simple even in classic Greek. In reference to the N.T., accordingly, 
δὲ εἰ We have on this head but two remarks to make : 

a. The Imperfect Indicative is sometimes employed, as in Latin 
(Zumpt, S. 446), where we should use the Subjunctive; as, 2 Cor. 
xii. 11 ἐγὼ ὥφειλον ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν συνίστασθαι debebam commendari 
I ought to have been commended, Matt. xxv. 27 ἔδει σε βαλεῖν thou 
oughtest to have put etc. (2 Cor. ii. 3; Acts xxiv. 19; xxvii. 21), 
Matt. xxvi. 9 ἠδύνατο τοῦτο πραθῆναι etc., xxvi. 24 καλὸν ἣν αὐτῷ 
εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη it were good for him (would have been), satius erat, 
2 Pet. ii. 21 κρεῖττον ἣν αὐτοῖς μὴ ἐπεγνωκέναι τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς δικαιοσύνης 
(Aristoph. nub. 1215; Xen. Anab. Τ,7, 40; Philostr. Apoll. 7, 80 ; 
Lucian. dial. mort. 27,9; Diog. L. 1, 64), Acts xxii 22 od yap 
καθῆκεν αὐτὸν ζῆν he should not have lived (i.e. he ought to have 
been put to death long ago), non debebat or debuerat vivere, ef. 
Mtth. 1138 f. ; Stallb. Plat. Symp. p. 14. The Greeks and Latins 
here merely state what, independently of circumstances, was proper, 
what should or should not have taken place; and the reader, by 
combining this statement with the actual fact, infers the disapproval 
of the latter. The Germans (and English) start from the present 
state of the matter, and by the Subjunctive express disapproval of 
its origin. Both moods therefore are correct in thought. It must 
not, however, be supposed that in such Greek constructions there 
is an omission of ἄν ; for such expressions to the mind of a Greek 
exclude all thought of a condition under which something would 
have been good or must have happened; see Hm. partic. av § 12. 


4to. Cf. also Doederlein on Moods and Conjunctions, in his Reden u. Aufsitze. 
Erlangen 1843. 8vo. nr. 9. 4 

1 Modern Greek has, as is well known, wholly given up the Optative ; and it is still 
a question how far it was used in the popular speech of the ancient Greeks. It is often 
the case that certain forms and constructions embodying refinements of the literary 
diction are persistently shunned by the people. : 





Ἷ 
Ε 


8 418. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 9883. 


᾿Εβουλόμην etc. vellem, (without av), is to be explained some- 


what differently, e.g. Acts xxv. 22 ἐβουλόμην Kal αὐτὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου 266 
ἀκοῦσαι I too should wish to hear the man (the account of him having ‘hed 


awakened my curiosity), Aristoph. ran. 866; Aeschin. Ctesiph. 
274b.; Arrian. Epict. 1, 19,18; Lucian. dial. mort. 20,4; abdic. 
1; Char. 6, ete. There is expressed here, not a desire which has 
been active at some former time merely (under different circum- 
stances) volebam, but a wish still felt by the speaker. This, how- 
ever, is not stated directly (volo), for this can be done only when 
the performance is viewed as dependent solely on the will (1 Tim. 
ii. 8; 1 Cor. xvi. 7; Rom-xvi. 19, etc.) ; nor by means of ἐβουλόμην 
ἄν, for this would imply the counterpart but 7 will not, Hm. partic. 


av p. 66 sq., nor yet by the much weaker βουλοίμην ἄν (Xen. Oec. 299 


6,12; Krii. 163), velim, I could wish; but definitely: J was 
wishing, wished, that is, if it were proper, if thou wouldst permit 
it (and wish. accordingly on this assumption), Bhdy. S. 374; 
Kiihner II. 68, (a conditional clause, therefore, being understood).1 
So also Rom. ix. 3 ηὐχόμην yap αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀνάθεμα εἶναι ἀπὸ τοῦ 


. Χριστοῦ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν pou optarem ego ete., and Gal. iv. 20, 


see my Comment. in loc. (It is otherwise in 2 Cor. i.15; Philem. 


13, 14, where the Aorists express what actually took place, and in 254 


2 Jno. 12 ἠβουλήθην.) 


In Jno. iv. 4 etc. ἔδει is to be taken as a genuine Imperf. Indicative, 
denoting a real fact. On the contrary, in Heb. ix. 26 ἐπεὶ ἔδει αὐτὸν 
πολλάκις παθεῖν the particle ἄν might have been expected, as something is 
expressed that according to a certain supposition must have taken place. 
The Codd., however, do not give it, and it can be omitted, — just as we 
say: for (otherwise), if that were the design, he must have often suffered 
(cf. Hm. Eurip. Bacch. p. 152; Bhdy. 390, see ὃ 42,2). In Rom. xi. 6; 
1 Cor. vii. 14; v. 10, the Indicatives Pres. after ἐπεί (otherwise, alioquin) 
are usually rendered as Subjunctives. The meaning, however, of the first 
two passages is simply this: then (in that case i.e. if ἐξ ἔργων) grace is no 
longer grace ; then (in case the husband is not sanctified in the wife) are 
your children unclean. But in 1 Cor. y. 10 nearly all the better Codd. 
[Sin. also] read ὠφείλετε. See, further, Ast, Plat. legg. p. 162 86. ; Stallb. 
Plat. Euthyphr. p. 57. 

In 1 Cor. vii. 7 θέλω πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἶναι ὡς καὶ ἐμαυτόν the Indic. 


1 Schoemann ad Isaeum p. 435 takes a different view: Addita particula ἄν voluntatem 
significamus a conditione suspensam : vellem, si liceret; omissa autem particula etiam 
conditionis notio nulla subintelligitur, sed hoe potius indicatur, vere nos illud voluisse, 
etiamsi omittenda fuerit voluntas, scilicet quod frustra nos velle cognovimus. This 
nice distinction, however, might not be applicable to all passages. 


284 §4la. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 


θέλω is not used, as Pott maintains, for θέλοιμι or ἤθελον. Paul actually 
entertained this wish, directing his attention meantime merely to the 
advantage that would thus accrue to men (Christians), and not to the 
obstacles. Had he referred to the latter he must have said: J could wish, 

967 or L could have wished, velim or vellem. Baumgarten has understood the 

ith ed, passage correctly. In the same way we must explain 1 Cor. vii. 28, where 
φείδομαι is likewise explained by Pott as equivalent to φειδοίμην ἄν. All 
recent expositors have correctly explained 2 Cor. xii. 9 ἀρκεῖ σοι ἡ χάρις 
pov, which Luther inaccurately renders: be satisfied with my grace. The 
force of the Indicative has been exaggerated in another way in 1 Cor. v. 7: 
καθώς ἐστε ἄζυμοι esse debetis ; incorrectly, see Mey. 


8. The Indicative Pres. sometimes occurs also b. in direct ques- 
tions where in Latin the Subjunctive (in German the auxiliary verb 
sollen) would be used ; as, Jno. xi. 47 τί ποιοῦμεν ; ὅτι οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρω- 

300 mos πολλὰ σημεῖα ποιεῖ, quid faciamus ? what are we to do? Lucian, 
pisc. 10; asin. 25. The Ind., however, here strictly denotes that 
something must undoubtedly be done (forthwith) ; so we say, 
what are we doing? more resolute and emphatic than what shall 
wedo? Ti ποιῶμεν is the question of one who invites to delibera- 
tion (cf. Acts iv. 16) ; τέ ποιοῦμεν, on the contrary, is the language 
of one who on behalf of those concerned assumes the determination 
not only in general ¢o do something, but also to do something definite, 
and desires simply to draw out a declaration of the specific thing. 
[That this distinction is not artificial, as Bttm. Gramm. ἃ. N. Τὶ 
Sprachgebr. S. 180 asserts, has been justly acknowledged by Mey., 
also, inloc.] On this (rhetorical) Ind. Pres., which mainly occurs 
in conversation, see Heind. Plat. Gorg. p. 109 and Theaet. p. 449 ; 
Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 141; Bhdy. 396. 

The Greeks go still further, and even say πίνομεν we drink i.e. 
we are to drink, when they mean to proceed to drink forthwith, when 
the cup has been already lifted up (Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 559). 
Gal. vi. 10 however, ἐργαζόμεθω τὸ ἀγαθόν, which is the reading 

255 in good Codd. viz. AB and which Lehm. has printed [but only in 

δ his stereotyp. ed.] can hardly serve as an instance of this usage ; 
see Mey. As to Jno. xxi. 3, ef. § 40, 2, p. 265. 


The meaning of 1 Cor. x. 22 ἢ παραζηλοῦμεν τὸν κύριον ; which Schott 
still renders by the Subjunctive, is probably: or do we provoke God? is 
that the meaning of our conduct, to awaken God’s wrath? zapag. expresses, 
not what is still to take place (as Riick. takes it [and recently even Bttm. 
Gramm. d. N. T. Sprachgebr. §. 181 considers as not inappropriate 7), but 
what is already actually taking place. Rom. viii. 24 ὃ βλέπει τις, τί καὶ 
ἐλπίζει; is not (Schott) quare insuper speret? for dropping the question 


ia 


8414. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 985 


the passage means, not. he may no longer hope for ; but: he no longer 
hopes for. On the Ind. Fut. for the Subjunctive, see § 40, 6, p. 279. 

The Indicatives in Jas. v.13 κακοπαθεῖ τις ἐν ὑμῖν, ... ἀσθεν εἴ τις ἐν 
ὑμῖν, denoting a case represented as real, are attended with no difficulty : 
some one is afflicted among you, ... some one ts sick among you, ete. 
Demosth. cor. 351 6. (where a point of interrogation is not necessary, 268 
Krii. 160). In Greek authors, even a Preterite is used in this way, Tth ed. 
Mtth. 1155. 


4. The Supsunctrve is used in independent propositions 
a. When an invitation or resolution (conjunct. adhortativus) 
is expressed (Mtth. 1169); as, Jno. xiv. 31 ἐγείρεσθε, ἄγωμεν 
ἐντεῦθεν, xix. 24: 1 Cor. xv. 82 φάγωμεν καὶ πίωμεν, αὔριον γὰρ 
ἀποθνήσκομεν, Phil. iii. 15 ὅσοι οὖν τέλειοι, τοῦτο φρον μεν, 1 Thess. 
γ. θ γρηγορῶμεν καὶ νήφωμεν, Luke viii, 22. The Codd. occasion- 
ally vary between the Subjunct. and the Fut. Heb. vi. 8; 1 Cor. 
xiv. 15; Jas. iv. 13, but in the first two passages there is prepon- 
derating evidence in favor of the Subjunctive, 
b. In undetermined questions (conjunct. deliberativus, Mtth. 1170; 
Bhdy. 396; Kiihner I. 102 f.); as, Mark xii. 14 δῶμεν ἢ μὴ δῶμεν ; 
shall we give or not give? Rom. vi. 1 ἐπιμένωμεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ; 1 Cor. 
xi. 22; also in the 3d and 2d Pers., as Luke xxiii. 31 εἰ ἐν τῷ ὑγρῷ 301 
ξύλῳ ταῦτα ποιοῦσιν, ἐν τῷ ξηρῷ τί γένηται ; and Matt. xxvi. 54 
πῶς πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαί; how shall the Scriptures be fulfilled ? 
xxiii. 33 πῶς φύγητε (Jno. v. 47 var.). Under this head comes the 
Subjunctive in certain set phrases ; as, Luke ix. 54 θέλεις εἴπωμεν 
πῦρ καταβῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ; (Hm. de ellips. p. 183) wilt thou 
| that we, are we to bid etc., Matt. xiii. 28; xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12; 
. Luke xxii. 9. Cf. Eurip. Phoen. 722 βούλει τράπωμαι δῆθ᾽ ὁδοὺς 
ἄλλας twas ; Xen. Mem. 2, 1, 1 βούλει σκοπῶμεν ; Aesch. Ctesiph. 
297 ec. ; Lucian. dial. m. 20,3. See also Matt. vii. 4 ἄφες ἐκβάλω τὸ 
κάρφος etc. 1 Cor. iv. 21. It is a mistake to supply in such cases 
ἵνα or ὅπως (Lehmann, Lucian. IIT. 466). There is no ellipsis, any 
more. than, for example, in the German es scheint sie kommen, tt 
seems they are coming. In some passages, Codd. have the Fut., 
| which, in these phrases, Greek authors do employ (Lucian. navig. 
[ 26), though not very frequently ; see Lob. Phryn. p. 734, and Fr. 
; Matt. p. 465, 761 (from the Sept. see Heb. viii. 5) cf. e.g. Exod. 


xxv. 40 ὅρα ποιήσεις κατὰ τὸν τύπον etc. 


In questions, the Future instead of the Conjunct. deliberativus of the 256 
3d Pers. is, according to the testimony of the Codd., more frequent in the fa 
N. T., see above, ὃ 40, 6, and is to be retained even in Rom. x. 14f.; 





286 8418. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 


although in Greek authors the Subjunctive, in this person also, not un- 
frequently occurs (Stallb. Plat. Men. p. 103; Krii. 161): Soph. Aj. 403 
mot τις φύγῃ ; Oed. Col. 170 ποῖ τις φροντίδος ἔλθῃ ; (Ist Pers. vs. 311) ; 
Plato, Soph. 225a.; Arrian. Epict. 3, 22,96. In Luke xi. 5 the Fut. Ind. 
and the Subjunctive are connected, ris ἐξ ὑμῶν ἕξει φίλον καὶ πορεύσεται 
πρὸς αὐτόν ... καὶ εἴπῃ αὐτῷ ; see Mtth. 1171; Hm. partic. ἄν p- 87; Stallb. 
Plat. Phileb. p. 26 and Phaed. p. 202; Bornem. Lue. p. 147; Bmln. p. 182. 

Respecting Jas. iv. 15 ἐὰν 6 κύριος θελήσῃ καὶ ζήσωμεν (ζήσομεν) Kat 
ποιήσωμεν (ποιήσομεν) τοῦτο ἢ ἐκεῖνο a learned controversy has been carried 
on between Fritzsche (Leipz. Literatur-Zeit. 1824. 5. 2316 and ἢ. krit. 
Journ. V.S. 3 ff.) and Bornem. (n. krit. Journ. VI. 5. 130ff.).. The former 
would make the conclusion begin at καὶ ποιήσομεν (adopting this as the 
preferable reading) ; the latter would make it begin at καὶ ζήσωμεν (re- 

269 taining also ποιήσωμεν). Fritzsche renders the passage: ¢f the Lord will 

th ed. and we live, we shall also do this or that ; Bornem.: if it please the Lord, 
let us seek our support, let us do this or that. Every one must feel that 
there is something incongruous in the expression if God will, we will 
live ; and B. himself has perceived this, as he translates (yo. we will use 
life! But this explanation appears forced, and not warranted by biblical 
usage. There is nothing remarkable in the occurrence of καί at the be- 
ginning of the apodosis (2 Cor. xi. 12). With regard to this, therefore, 
I must agree with Fr. But he should not have asserted that ποιήσομεν 

302 is far better attested than ζήσομεν. The critical authorities are nearly 
equal. Only from Cod. Meerm. (by Dermout) ποιήσομεν (but not ζήσομεν) 
has been adduced, [and Cod. Sin. has ποιήσομεν together with ζήσομεν]. 
Considering the ease with which a mistake in transcribing might occur, we 
should probably adopt as the most suitable reading: ἐὰν 6 κύριος θελήσῃ 
καὶ ζήσωμεν, καὶ ποιήσωμεν etc. (vs. 18). 

δ. The Oprative is used in independent propositions when a 
wish is expressed ; as, Acts viii. 20 τὸ ἀργύριόν σου σὺν σοὶ εἴη εἰς 
ἀπώλειαν, Rom. xv. 5; Philem. 20 ἐγώ σου ὀναίμην, 1 Pet. i. 2; 
2 Pet. i. 2; 1 Thess. iii. 11 ἢ; v. 23; 2 Thess. iii. 5; (in 2 Cor. 
ix. 10; 2 Tim. ii. 7 the Futures are to be restored, as is the Imperat. 
λαβέτω in Acts i. 20). As to the Sept. see some remarks in Thiersch 
p.101. Cf. 1 Kings viii. 57; Ps. ΚΙ, ὃ. Tob. v.14; x.12; xi. 16. 


Instead of the Optative, the Hebrew frequently employs a question to 
denote a wish; as, 2 Sam. xv. 4 ris με καταστήσει κριτήν utinam quis me 
constituat ! This construction, however, occurs also in Greek poets, Fr. 
Rom. II. 70. Yet it is on insufficient grounds that Rom. vii. 24 ris pe 
ῥύσεται etc. has been taken as a wish expressed in the form of a question. 
A question expressive of perplexity and conscious helplessness is here 
peculiarly appropriate, and requires no μετάβασις εἰς ἄλλο γένος. 


ὃ 410. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. Q87 


b. USE OF THESE THREE MOODS IN DEPENDENT PROPOSITIONS. 257 
6th od, 
1. The particles of design ἵνα and ὅπως (both which, however, 


strictly signify gwo modo, ut ;— respecting μή see below, ὃ 56), 
are quite naturally construed with the Subjunctive and Optative 
(according to the distinction above pointed out between the two 
moods), as every design refers to the future, and, consequently, to 
something still to be carried into effect. The Indicative they can 
take — so long as the writer thinks correctly — only in the Future 
tense.! 

In the N. T. these particles are usually followed by 

a. The Subjunctive, and then a. not only after the Present, as 
Matt. vi.2 ποιοῦσιν ... ὅπως δοξασθῶσιν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, 2 Tim. 
ii. 4 οὐδεὶς στρατευόμενος ἐμπλέκεται τωῖς τοῦ βίου πραγματείαις, 
ἵνα τῷ στρατολογήσαντι ἀρέσῃ, 10 πάντα ὑπομένω διὰ τ. ἐκλεκτούς, 210 
ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ σωτηρίας τύχωσι (Mark iv. 21; Luke viii. 12 ; Rom. nde 
xi. 25; 1 Jno. i. 3; Heb. ix. 15; 1 Cor. vii. 29; Gal. vi. 13; the 
Subjunctive here denoting — Hm. Vig. 850 — what was regarded 
as a consequence actually about to take place, what was in fact and 
immediately designed, consequently what is objectively possible), 
and after the Imperat. and the Fut., as 1 Tim. iv. 15 ἐν τούτοις 808 
ἴσθι, ἵνα σου ἡ πρδκοπὴ φανερὰ 7}, Matt. ii. 8 ἀπαγγείλατέ μοι. ὅπως 
κἀγὼ ἐλθὼν προςκυνήσω αὐτῷ, ν. 16; χὶν. 15; Acts viii. 19 ; xxiii. 
15; 1 Cor. iii. 18; 1 Jno. ii. 28; Jno. v. 20 μείζονα τούτων δείξει 
αὐτῷ ἔργα, iva ὑμεῖς θαυμάζητε, Phil. i. 26, also after the Conjunct. 
adhort. or deliber., as in Rom. iii. 8; Luke xx. 14; Jno. vi. 5, etc., 
— all in accordance with the preceding remarks, and quite regular 
(Hm. Vig. 850) ; — but also 8. after the Preterite, when the latter 
denotes a really past time? (ef. Gayler, de partic. gr. sermon. negat. 
p- 176 sq.), and there occasionally can be perceived a reason for 
selecting this mood instead of the Optative (Hm. Vig. 791: Krii. 
166).2 Accordingly, in the following passages the Subjunctive 
may denote an action still continuing either in itself or in its 
results, or one frequently recurring (Hm. Vig. 850 and ad Eurip. 
Hecub. p.7; Heind. Plat. Protag. § 29; Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 103; 


1 See, in general, Franke in the Darmstidter Schulzeit. 1839. S. 1236 ff. ; Klotz, 
Devar. Il. 615 sqq. 

2 For where a Perfect has the sense of a Present, ἵνα or ὅπως with the Subjunctive 
cannot be surprising, Jno. vi. 38; Luke xvi. 26; Acts ix. 17; 1 Jno. v. 20. 

8 Many other distinctions have been laid down by Wer in the epist. crit. ad Gesenium 
(Lips. 1831. 4to.) p. 22sqq. The question arises, however, whether such nice distine- 
tions are consistent with the character of a living language. 


988 §41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 


Ast, Plat. lege. p. 93; Klotz, Devar, II. 618): 1 Tim. i.16 ἠλεήθην, 
iva ἐν ἐμοὶ πρώτῳ ἐνδείξηται I. Χριστὸς τὴν πᾶσαν μακροθυμίαν, 
vs. 20 ods παρέδωκα τῷ σατανᾷ, ἵνα παιδευθῶσι μὴ βλασφημεῖν, 
Tit. i. ὃ κατέλυπόν σε ἐν Κρήτῃ, ἵνα τὰ λείποντα ἐπιδιορθώσῃ, 
ii. 14 ὃς ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν περὶ ἡμῶν, ἵνα λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς. Rom. 
vi. 4 συνετάφημεν αὐτῷ, va... καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς rept 
πατήσωμεν, 1 Jno. ili. 5 ἐφανερώθη, ἵνα τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν ἄρῃ, 


258 vs. ὃ ἐφανερώθη, ἵνα χύσῃ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου, v. 18 ταῦτα ἔγραψα 
θὲ οἱ ὑμῖν, ἵνα εἰδῆτε; οἵ, Lukei.4 (Plat. Crit.43b.; rep.9,472¢.; legg. 


2,653d.; Xen.Mem.1,1,8; Aelian. 12,30). In other passages, 
e.g. Acts v. 26 ἤγωγεν αὐτούς ... ἵνα μὴ λιθασθῶσιν, Acts ix. 21 
εἰς τοῦτο ἔληλύθει, ἵνα... ἀγάγῃ, the Subjunctive may denote an 
intended result of the ocewrrence of which the speaker entertained 
no doubt whatever ; cf. Mark viii. 6 ἐδίδου τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὑτοῦ, ἵνα 
παραθῶσι (that they might ... which they could not refuse to do), 
xii. 2; Acts xxv. 26 προήγαγον αὐτὸν ἐφ᾽ ὑμῶν, ὅπως τῆς ἀνακρίσεως 
γενομένης σχῶ τί γράψω. (The Optative would express a design 
of uncertain result, Mtth. 1182, 1184.) Lastly, the construction 
in Matt. xix. 18 προςηνέχθη αὐτῷ τὰ παιδία, ἵνα τὰς χεῖρας ἐπιθῇ 


271 αὐτοῖς, Mark x. 13 προςέφερον αὐτῷ παιδία, ἵνα ἅψηται αὐτῶν is 


τὰ ed. 


304 


perhaps to be explained by the fact that the Greeks in narration 
sometimes introduce the opinions of another in direct discourse, or 
at least as though he himself were still present, and consequently 
employ the same moods which he would have used (Heind. Plat. 
Protag. p. 502, 504; Poppo, Xen. Cyrop. p. 189 sq. and Thue. 1. I. 
141 sq.); so here: that he may lay his hands upon them, instead 
of might lay (Optative). The reader is thus more vividly made 
as it were a beholder of the scene described (Klotz, as above, pp. 
618 sq. 682) ; cf. Jno. xviii. 28; Matt. xii. 14. As, however, the 
Optative never occurs in the N.T. in this (8.) very common 
construction, we are by no means warranted in ascribing to the 
sacred writers this nice distinction. They seem, rather, to have 
unconsciously avoided the Optative —a mood which becomes more 
and more rare in the later language, and in the popular speech 
perhaps never conformed to the rules of literary Attic—even where 
a more cultivated taste in such matters would have certainly given 
it the preference (e.g. Jno. iv. 8; vii. 32; Luke vi. 7; xix. 4; 
2 Oor. viii. 6; Heb. ii. 14; xi. 85; Phil. ii. 27, etc.). Even Plu- 
tarch, in the above construction, usually employs the Subjunctive, 

1 Even in the earlier authors particles of design are more frequently construed with 
the Subjunctive after a Preterite than was formerly admitted. See Bremi, Lys. exc. 1. 
p- 435 sqq. 


a δ ιν. 
ἃν. 
A> 


OO eg ES Se ee 


ee ee ee ἀὐπρ- 


§41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 989 


and in the Hellenistic language it is everywhere the predominant 
mood, as may be seen from every page of the Sept., Apocrypha, 
Pseudepigrapha, etc. (Thilo, Act. Thom. p. 47). 

b. The Indicative Future (after a Pres. and Perf. ef. Hm. Vig. 
851); as, Rev. xxii. 14 μακάριοι οἱ ποιοῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, ἵνα 
ἔσται ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν etc. (the Subjunctive immediately follows), 
iii.9; vi.11; xiv. 13 (var.); Jno. xvii. 2 ἔδωκας αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν ... “- 
iva... δώσει αὐτοῖς (al. δώσῃ), 1 Pet. iii. 1; 1 Cor. xiii. 3 (var) ; 
Gal. ii. 4 (var.). Compare, further, the variants in Rev. vill, 3; 

ix. 20; xiii. 16; xiv. 13, (on the other hand, in the Ο. T. quota- 
tion Eph. vi. 3 the construction is continued in the oratio directa 

at ἔσῃ, which accordingly must not be supposed to depend on iva. 

In the same way may be explained also the var. ἐξαναστήσει and 
καθίσεσθε in Mark xii. 19 and Luke xxii. 80). The Fut. with- 
ὅπως never occurs in the N. T. (for ὅπως ... ζήσεται Mark v. 23 

has little authority) ; but this is a construction not unfrequent in 259 
Greek authors, as Xen. A. 8, 1,18; Theophr. char. 22; Isocr, ‘to 
perm. 746; Dem. Mid. 398 b.; Soph. Philoct. 55; οἵ, Bornem. 
Xen. Anab. p. 498 ; Klotz as above, p. 683 sq.; Gayler de partic. 
negat. p. 211,321; Rost 647 f., and the Fut. then usually denotes 

a continuing state, while the Aor. Subjunct. is used of something 
quickly passing by. This construction with ἵνα also appears cor- 
rect to Elmsley, Eurip. Bacch. p. 164; see, on the other hand, 305 
Hm. Soph. Oed. Col. 155, and de partic. ἄν p. 134; Klotz, Devar. 

IJ. 630 — (in all the passages referred to this head ἵνα may be 272 
conveniently rendered by whi or where). Instances of this con- th ed 
struction actually occur in the later writers (Cedren. II. 136), the 
Fathers (Epiph. II. 332 b.), and the Apocrypha (Evang. apoer. p. 
437; Thilo, apocr. 682); ef. Schaef. Demosth. IV. 273. In the 

N. T. this mood, according to the above passages, is pretty well 
established, though owing to Itacism the forms of the Ind. and of 

the Subj. might easily have been interchanged. 

c. Lastly, the use of ἵνα in connection with the Present Ind.,1 of 
which two instances occur almost without var.—41 Cor. iv. 6 ἵνα 
μάθητε... ἵνα μὴ φυσιοῦσθε. and Gal. iv. 17 ζηλοῦσιν ὑμᾶς ... ἵνα 
αὐτοὺς ζηλοῦτε, --- ἰβ very surprising; for the Pres. Ind. after ἃ par- 
ticle of design seems illogical. Hence Fr. Matt. p. 836 sq. asserted 
that in both passages ἵνα is not the Conjunction, but the Adverb 
ubi; and this opinion, after Fr. had exchanged it as respects the 


1 Valckenaer’s note on 1 Cor. confounds the Indic. Preterite, Future, and Present, 
and is consequently useless. 
87 


290 8 410. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 


first passage for another (Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 186 sqq.),! Mey. 
has taken up again: wnder which circumstances you (then) are 
not puffed up,— where (in which case) you are zealous in regard 

to them. . But, apart from the fact that in the whole Greek Bible ἵνα 
never once occurs as an Adverb of place, the Pres. in both passages 
would be surprising, and also in the first passage ov would rather 

be expected. Moreover in both passages, as Mey. himself admits, 

ἵνα denoting design is far more in accordance with the Apostle’s 
meaning. I think, therefore, that this use of ἵνα with the Ind. 
Pres. must be regarded as an impropriety of later Greek,?— although 

the passage from Acta Ignat. ed. Ittig. p. 538 does not furnish satis- 
factory proof, as ἀπολοῦνται might be taken for the Atti¢ Fut. if 
necessary, and in Geopon. 10, 48,3; Himer. 15, 3 the Ind. may 
have arisen easily from the Subjunct. by a mistake of the scribe. 

On the other hand, in later works ἵνα with the Ind. Pres. occurs 

so frequently as to preclude the supposition that every instance is a 
mistake of transcribers; see Malal. 10, p. 264 ἐπιτρέψας ἵνα πάντες 

ον βαστάζουσιν, 12, p. 800 ἐποίησε κέλευσιν ἵνα... χρηματίζουσι, 
Acta Pauli et Petri 7 προάγει, ἵνα μία πόλις ἀπόλλυται, 20 ἐδίδαξα 
806 ἵνα τῇ τιμῇ ἀλλήλους προηγοῦνται, Acta Pauli et Thecl. p. 45 ἵνα 
200 γάμοι μὴ γίνονται ἀλλὰ οὕτως μένουσιν, Evang. apocr. p. 447.3 And 
‘this construction has further forced its way even into the N.T., 
273 good Codd. having in Jno. xvii. 3 ἵνα... γινώσκουσι. [Cf. besides, 
Mh ed. Gal. vi. 12 ἵνα μὴ διώκονται, Tit. ii. 4 ἵνα σωφρονίζουσιν, Rev. xiii. 17 
a μή τις δύναται in Tischendorf’s text, and 2 Pet. i. 10 ἵνα ποιεῖσθε 
in Lachmann’s.] Either, therefore, Paul actually wrote thus (yet 
see Bengel on 1 Cor. iv.), or the forms were introduced in these 
passages by transcribers at.an early date. It is worthy of remark, 
however the case may be, that in both instances the verb ends in ow. 


When the Optative (after a Pres.) follows ἵνα, as in Eph. iii. 16 κάμπτω 
τὰ γόνατά pov πρὸς Tov πατέρα τοῦ κυρίου ... ἵνα δῴη ὑμῖν etc. (where, 
however, very good Codd. [Sin. too] have δῷ) i. 17, ἵνα is not strictly a 
particle of design; but the clause which it commences expresses the object 
of the wish and prayer (that he may give), and the Opt., as modus optandi, 
is selected on this very account; see Harless on Eph.i.17. Yet the Opt. 
is used even after iva or ὅπως in order that, when it depends on a clause 


1 He adopts the emendation ἕνα uh... φυσιοῦσθαι (for ἵνα wh... φυσιοῦσθε) ; but 
against this see Meyer. 

2 Modern Greek, e.g. in the Confess. Orthod., usually puts the Ind. Present after vd 
or διὰ νά. 

5. Xen. Athen. 1,11 ἵνα λαμβάνων μὲν πράττει (which Sturz still adduces in his Lexie, 
Xenoph.) was long ago changed into λαμβάνωμεν πράττει. See Schneider in loc. 


ὃ 410. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 991 


expressive of a wish, Soph. Philoct. 325 and Aj. 1200; see Hm. on the 
latter passage, and Wex, epist. crit. p. 33. (In Eph. as above, it is un- 
necessary, with Lcehm. and Fr. Rom. III. 230, to read δώῃ, an Ionic form 
of the Subjunctive which is not sufficiently established in the N. T.) 


2. In HYPOTHETICAL sentences four kinds of construction occur 
(Hm. Vig. 834, 902) : 1 

a. Pure condition: ἐγ thy friend comes, give him my regards (the 
case is put as real). Here the Indicative is used with εἰ ; ** quae 
particula per se nihil significat praeter conditionem,” Klotz, Devar. 
455, οἵ. p. 487. 

b. Condition with assumption of objective possibility (where 
experience will decide whether or not it is real): if thy friend 
should come (1 do not know whether he will come, but the result 
will show). Here ἐάν (ei ἄν see Hm. partic. ἄν p. 95 sqq ) with 
the Subjunctive is used. 

6. Condition with assumption of subjective possibility, the con- 
dition existing merely in thought: if thy friend come (the case 
being conceivable and credible) I should be pleased to present my 307 
respects to him. Here εἰ with the Optative is used. 

d. Condition believed to be contrary to the fact: were there a 
God, he would govern (but there is not). Had God existed from 
eternity, he would have prevented evil (but he has not existed). 
Here εἰ with the Indicative is used, — the Imperf. in the first case, 
the Aor. or (much more rarely) the Plup. in the second (Καὶ. 170) ; 
in the conclusion likewise one of these two tenses. Why a Preterite 961 
isused has been explained by Hm. Vig. 821,compare with this Stallb., Sth ed 
Plat. Euthyphr. p.51 sq. In general, see Klotz, Devar. p. 450 sqq. 


For ἐάν we sometimes find, as in Jno. xii. 32; xvi. 28; xx. 23; Luke 274 
iv. 6 (where, however, Tdf. has made no remark), in good Codd. (as B) th ed. 
ἄν, respecting which cf. Hm. Vig. 812, 822. It is also by no means rare 
in Greek authors, even in Attic, though these prefer ἤν, which does not 
occur in the N. T. 


1See also ad Soph. Antig. 706; ad Soph. Oed. C. 1445; ad Eur. Bacch. 200. 
Klossmann, de ratione et usu enuntiator. hypothet. linguae gr. Vratisl. 1830. Kiesling, 
2 Programm. de enunciatis hypothet. in lingua gr. et lat. Cizae, 1835. 45. 4to. Reck- 
nagel, zur Lehre von den hypothetischen Satzen mit Riicksicht auf die Grundformen 
derselben in der griech. Sprache. Niirnberg, 1843 ff. III. 4to. Besides, it can easily be 
conceived that, in many sentences, either εἰ or ἐάν might be used with equal propriety, 
the selection depending on the writer. The later writers are not careful to discriminate 
between them. It may be worthy of remark, that Euclid almost always uses ἐάν with 
the Subjunctive of a case in Mathematics (respecting which no future experience is 
needed to decide). 


292 ὃ 410. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 


The diction of the N.T. will be found entirely in accordance 
with the preceding rules; e.g. 

a. a. Matt. xix. 10 εἰ οὕτως ἐστὶν ἡ αἰτία τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ... οὐ 
συμφέρει γαμῆσαι, 1 Cor. vi. 2; ix.17; Rom. viii. 25 ; Οὐ]. ii. 5 (Pres. 
followed by Pres.) ; Matt. xix. 17 εἰ θέλεις εἰφελθεῖν εἰς τὴν ζωήν, τήρει 
τὰς ἐντολάς, Vili. 81; xxvii. 40; Jno. vii. 4; 1 Cor. vii. 9 (Pres. fol- 
lowed by Imperat.) ; Rom. viii. 11 εἰ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἐγείραντος ᾿Ιησοῦν 
εὐ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν, ὁ ἐγείρας ... ζωοποιήσει καὶ τὰ θνητὰ σώματα, ὑμῶν, 
Matt. xvii.4; Acts xix.39; Jno.v.47 (Pres. followed by Fut.) ; 1 Cor. 
xv. 16 εἰ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, οὐδὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται if the dead do 
not rise (1 assume the case), then is Christ also not risen, xiii. Ἵ ; 
2 Pet. ii. 20 (Rom. iv. 14) (Pres. followed by Perf.) ef. Demosth. ep. 3, 
Ρ. 114 b.; Matt. xii. 26 εἰ ὁ σατανᾶς τὸν σατανᾶν ἐκβάλλει, ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὸν 
ἐμερίσθη, οἵ, vs. 28; Luke xi. 20 (Pres. followed by Aor.) ef. Orig. de 
die domin. p. ὃ Jani: εἰ δὲ τοῦ ἔργου ἀπέχεις, εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν δὲ οὐκ 
εἰςξέρχῃ, οὐδὲν ἐκέρδανας. β. Acts xvi. 15 εἰ κεκρίκατέ με πιστὴν τῷ 
κυρίῳ εἶναι, εἰςελθόντες ... μείνατε (Perf. followed by Imperat.) ; 
2 Cor. v. 16 εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κατὰ σάρκα Χριστόν, ara νῦν οὐκέτι 
γινώσκομεν (Perf. followed by Pres.; cf. Demosth.c. Boeot. p.639 a.) ; 
Jno. xi. 12 εἰ κεκοίμηται, σωθήσεται (Perf. followed by Fut.), Rom. 
vi.5; 2 Cor. ii. 5 εἴ τις χελύπηκεν, οὐκ ἐμὲ λελύπηκεν (Perf. followed 
by Perf.) ; vii. 14 εἴ τε αὐτῷ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν κεκαύχημαι, od κατῃσχύνθην 
(Perf. followed by Aor.). γ΄. Rom. χν. 21 εἰ τοῖς πνευματικοῖς αὐτῶν 

808 ἐκοινώνησαν τὰ ἔθνη, ὀφείλουσι etc., 1 Jno. iv.11 (Aor. followed by 
Pres.) ; Jno. xviii. 23 εἰ κακῶς ἐλάλησα, μαρτύρησον περὶ Tod κακοῦ, 
Rom. xi. 17,18; Col. iii. 1; Philem. 18 (Aor. followed by Imperat.) ; 
Jno. xiii. 32 εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ ὁ θεὸς δοξάσει ἀὐτὸν ἐν 

202 ἑαυτῷ, xv. 201 (Aor. followed by Fut.). ὃ.. Matt. xxvi. 33. εἰ 

6th ed. ; 
1 Jn this passage: εἰ ἐμὲ ἐδίωξαν, καὶ ὑμᾶς διώξουσι" εἰ τὸν λόγον μον ἐτήρησαν, καὶ τὸν 
ὑμέτερον τηρήσουσι, the translation if they persecuted me, they will persecute you also, etc. is 
the only correct one. The words appear to me to be simply a special application of 
the preceding thought, vd« ἔστι δοῦλος μείζων τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ : your lot will be like 
mine; there is but a single alternative: persecution or acceptance. The words them- 
selves leave it for the moment undecided which of the two has befallen Jesus. What 
Jollows, however, shows how Jesus wished to be understood. Only it must not be 
overlooked that Jesus speaks of the conduct of the Jews in general, without reference to 
individual exceptions. According to a new exposition put forth by rector Lehmann 
in the Prog. Jucubrationum sacrar. et profan. Pt. I. (Liibben, 1828. 4to.) a vis proportio- 
nalis is to be attributed to εἰ : quemadmodum me persecuti sunt, ita et vos persequentur ; 
quemadmodum (prout) meam doctrinam amplexi observarunt, ita et vestram, ete. But 
this import of the particle should have been established by decisive examples (in Jno. 
xiii. 14, 32 such force it obviously has not). The writer seems to have confounded the 


simple comparative ut . . . ita (the parallel antithesis of two clauses standing in necessary 
correlation) with the proportional prout, according as. There is a difference between 





8 410. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 293 


; πάντες σκανδαλισθήσονται ἐν σοί, ἐγὼ οὐδέποτε σκανδαλισθήσομαι 275 
(Fut. followed by Fut. like Isocr. Archid. p. 280; Porphyr. abstin, ™ et 
1, 24); yet in Jas. ii. 11, where according to the received text 
the Fut. is followed by the Perf., probably the true reading would 
give Present tenses in the protasis. Such construction with the 
Fut. would approximate most nearly to that with ἐάν (Krii. 171) ; 
but i all shall be offended in thee is a more decided statement than 
if all should be offended. In the latter, it is still altogether uncer- 
tain whether they will be offended; in the former, this is assumed 
as a future fact (Christ has distinctly assured his disciples of this), 
cf. Hm. Vig. p. 900. 

b. ᾿Εάν if an objective possibility with the expectation of a decision 
is to be expressed, always therefore in reference to something future 
(Hm. Vig. 834) ; as, Jno. vii. 17 ἐάν τις θέλῃ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν, 
γνώσεται etc., Matt. xxviii. 14 ἐὰν ἀκουσθῇ τοῦτο ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡγεμόνος, 
ἡμεῖς πείσομεν αὐτόν. Hence the consequent clause usually contains 
a Fut. (Matt. v. 13 ; Rom. ii. 26; 1 Cor. viii. 10; 1 Tim. ii. 15; 
or, what is equivalent, an Aor. with od μή Acts xiii. 41; Jno. 
viii. 51 f.) or an Imperat. (Jno. vii. 37; Matt. x. 13; xviii. 17; 
Rom. xii. 20; xiii. 4), more rarely a Pres., and then either in the 
sense of a Fut. (Xen. A. 3, 2, 20) or denoting something permanent, 
Matt. xviii. 13; 2 Cor. v. 1, or a general truth, Mark iii. 27; 1 Cor. 
ix. 16; Jno. viii. 16, 54; Acts xv. 1 (Diog. Laert. 6,44; 10, 152). 
Perfects in the conclusion become equivalent in sense to Presents, 309 
Rom. ii. 25; vii. 2; Jno. xx. 23 (on Rom. xiv. 23 and Jno. xv. 6 
see ὃ 40,4 b. 5b.). The Aor. in the conclusion occurs in 1 Cor. 
Vii. 28 ἐὰν δὲ καὶ γήμῃς, οὐχ ἥμαρτες thou hast not sinned, thou art 
notin this case asinner. Cf. Mtth. 1203; Klotz, Devar. 11. 451 sq. 
The Subjunctive depending on ἐάν may be a Subj. Pres. or a Subj. 
Aor. The latter (on the whole the more usual) is, for the most 
part, rendered in Latin by the Future Perfect. 


That ἐάν 1 Cor. vii. 11, as Riick. maintains, refers to an event (possibly) 
already past, is a mistake, cf. Mey. In 2 Cor. x. 8 also Mey. has corrected 
Riickert’s concessive acceptation of ἐάν. 


c. Ei with the Optat. to denote subjective possibility (Hm. partic. 
ἄν p. 97) ; and, a. When a condition is regarded as frequently re- 
curring (Klotz p. 492; Krii. 172), as 1 Pet. iii. 14 εἰ καὶ rac youre 


the two: In a free translation the first may be put for ei, but the latter is not compre- 

hended in the import of εἰ or 8ὲ ; and every one must perceive that in the passage in 

question ZL. really takes εἰ in two senses, first simply as ut and then as prout. See also 
Ρ Liicke in loe. 


294 §41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 


διὰ δικαιοσύνην, μακάριοι even if ye should suffer. Πάσχειν is desig: 

nated here not as something occurring in the future, but merely 

as something that may very probably occur, regarded without any 

276 reference to definite time (and in general as often as it may occur). 

ith ΜΙ Elsewhere only in parenthetical clauses, but with the same reference ; 

bth od, 2S: 1 Cor. xv. 87 σπείρεις .. . γυμνὸν κόκκον, εἰ τύχοι (if it should 

80 chance), σίτου (Dem. Aristocr. 436 ὁ. ; Lucian. navig. 44; amor. 42; 

Toxar. 4, see Jacob on the last passage, and Wetst. on 1 Cor. xv.), 

1 Pet. iii. 17 κρεῖττον ἀγαθοποιοῦντας, εἰ θέλοι τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, 

πάσχειν, οἷ. Isocr. Nicocl. p. 52. 8. After a Preterite when the 

condition, is represented as the subjective purpose of the agent ; as, 

Acts xxvii. 89 κόλπον τινὰ κατενόουν ἔχοντα αἰγιαλὸν εἰς ὃν ἐβουλεύοντο, 

εἰ δύναιντο, ἐξῶσαι τὸ πλοῖον, also Acts xxiv. 19 ods ἔδει ἐπὶ σοῦ 

παρεῖναι καὶ κατηγορεῖν, εἴ τι ἔχοιεν πρός με if they had anything 

against me (in their minds), Krii. 171. In Acts xx. 16 the Optat. 

might, in the same way, be expected; yet even in Greek authors 

sometimes (and that not merely in standing phrases, as εἰ δυνατόν 

ἐστι above) in orat. obliq. the Ind. is used; as, Ael. 12, 40 ἐκηρύχθη 

τῷ στρατοπέδῳ, εἴ τις ἔχει ὕδωρ ἐκ τοῦ Χοάσπου, ἵνα δῷ βασιλεῖ 

πιεῖν. cf. Engelhardt, Plat. apol. Ρ. 1606. Further, see no. 5 below. 

(After ἐάν in orat. obliq. nobody will expect the Opt. in the N. T. 

Acts ix. 2; Jno. ix. 22; xi. 57, Bttm. §126, 8; yet cf. Hm. 
Vig. 822.) 

For examples to d. see § 42. 

810 The exceptions to these rules in the N.T. text are but very few, and 

occur for the most part only in particular Codd. They are the following: 

a) εἰ is used with the Subjunctive’ in 1 Cor. ix. 11 εἰ ἡμεῖς ὑμῶν τὰ 

σαρκικὰ θερίσωμεν (according to good Codd.), xiv. 5 ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ διερμηνεύῃ 

(al. διερμηνεύει) except (in case that) he interpret, Rev. xi. 5 var. (Sir. 

xxii. 26)2 The use of this mood after εἰ by Attic authors was long denied, 

but it is now admitted to occur even in prose; see Hm. Soph. Aj. 491 and 

de partic. ἄν p. 96; Poppa, Cyrop. p. 209 and Emend. ad Mtth. Gramm. 

(Frkf. on the Oder, 1832) p. 17; Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 463; Klotz, Devar. 

II. 500sqq. The distinction between εἰ with the Subjunctive and ἐάν or 


1 Luke ix. 13 probably means : unless perhaps we are to buy some, and the mood does 
not depend on ei, —as elsewhere after the phrase ὥςπερ εἰ ἄν Muth. 1205. Plat. Cratyl. 
425d. εἰ μὴ ἄρα dh... καὶ ἡμεῖς ... ἀπαλλαγῶμ εν would be similar; but others read 
ἀπαλλαγεῖμεν. 

2In 1 Thess. v. 10 the text. rec. with all the better Codd. [Sin. also], has ἵνα, εἴτε 
γρηγορῶμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν, ἅμα σὺν αὐτῷ ζήσωμεν, where ( after a Pret. in the principal 
clause) a more exact writer would have used the Opt. in both passages; cf. Xen. A. 2, 
1,14. Yet ἵνα with the Subj. is here used according to Ὁ. 1, and the Subj. in the 
secondary clause is accommodated to this. 


§41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 295 





a qv is thus defined by Hm. (de partic. ἄν p. 97 and ad Soph. Oed. R. p. 52 sq. 
i cf. Klotz as above 501) : εἰ puts the condition simply, but when used with 
| the Subjunctive represents it as depending on the result; ἐάν also does 
the latter, but less decisively, inasmuch as the av represents the condition 
as dependent on accidental circumstances, if anyhow or perhaps. This 
will suit both the passages above quoted: ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ διερμηνεύῃ nist st 277 
interpretetur, on which the result will decide, refertur ad certam spem ith ed, 
} atque opinionem, futurum id esse (vel non esse). On the other hand, ἐάν 264 
would make the matter doubtful: waless he perhaps, which may be the 
case, interpret. This would be manifestly unsuitable, as the gift of inter- 
preting did exist, and was frequently exercised, vs. 26f. In later prose 
this Subjunctive became more and more frequent (Jacobs, Achill. Tat. 
p- 681 and Athen. p. 146; Locella, Xen. Ephes. p. 185; Jacob, Lucian. 
Tox. p. 53; Jacobitz, Index p. 473; Schaef. Ind. ad Aesop. p. 131), par- 
ticularly in Byzantine authors (Index to Malalas and Theophanes), also 
in the Hellenistic writings (Thilo, Acta Thom. p. 23), and almost uniformly 
in the Canon. Apost. and the Basilic. (in the Sept. cf. Gen. xliii. 3, 4). 
In these writers a fixed distinction between εἰ with the Subj. and the same 
particle with the Ind., cannot be traced, (many doubt whether such a dis- 
tinction existed even in Attic, Rost 5. 632; cf. Mtth. 1210 f.) ; consequently 
it is uncertain whether Paul had in view the nice discrimination specified 
above. 

b) ἐάν is followed by the Indicative (Klotz p. 468), and not only — a. by 

the Ind. Present (Sept. Ley. i. 14; Acta apocr. 259) according to good 
Codd. in Rom. xiv. 8 ἐὰν ἀποθνήσκομεν, τῷ κυρίῳ ἀποθν., a general truth: 
cum morimur (without reference to the fact that time will decide whether 
we die or not), 1 Thess. iii. 8 (in Gal. i. 8 the Ind. has little authority),' or 311 
Future, Jno. viii. 36 ἐὰν ὁ vids ὑμᾶς ἐλευθερώσει, Acts viii. 31 (where, how- 
ever, there is preponderant authority for the Subj.), Luke xi. 12 ἐὰν αἰτήσει 
ὠόν according to many uncial Codd. ewm petet, not petierit, vi. 34; see Klotz 
pp. 470, 472 sq. The same (cf. Fabric. Pseudepigr. I. 678, 687) occurs 
several times, as in Exod. viii. 21 (Lev. iv. 3), Malalas 5, p. 136; Cantacuz. 
1, 6, p. 30; 1, 54, p. 273 (Basilic. I. 175 ; Thilo, Acta Thom. p. 23 ; Schaef. 
ind. ad Aesop. p. 131), in which passages, to be sure, forms so slightly 
distinguished from each other hardly permit a positive decision ; — but also, 
B. by the Ind. Preterite, as in 1 Jno. v.15 ἐὰν οἴδαμεν without var. cf. 
Ephraemius 6298 (even when the Pret. is strictly Pret. in signification, as 
in Job xxii. ὃ; Theodoret. III. 267; Malalas 4, p.71 ἐὰν κἀκείνη ἠβούλετο, 
Nili ep. 3, 56 ἐὰν εἶδες, Ephraem. 5251), see Jacobs, Act. Monac. I. 147; 
cf. Hase, Leon. Diac. p. 143 ; Schaef. ad Bastii ep. crit. p. 26; Poppo, Thuc. 
111. I. 818 and III. Il. 1722 


1 Τὴ all these passages the form might easily have arisen from a mistake in transcrib- 
ing (Fr. Rom. III. 179) ; Klotz p. 471 sqq. has, however, adduced examples, from good 
writers to which this would not apply. 

2 Editors of early writers have usually corrected such passages (see also Bhdy. Dionys. 


996 ὃ 410. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 


Sometimes ἐάν and εἰ are connected in two parallel clauses ; as, Acts 
v. 38, 89 ἐὰν ἢ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἡ βουλὴ αὕτη ἢ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο, καταλυθήσεται 
(should it be from men, and this the result will show), εἰ δὲ ἐκ θεοῖ ἐστιν, 
ob δύνασθε καταλῦσαι αὐτό (if it is of God,—a case I assume), Luke xiii. 9 

Q78 κἂν μὲν ποιήσῃ καρπόν"... εἰ δὲ μήγε ... ἐκκόψεις si fructus tulerit ;... sin 
ith ed. minus (si non fert) ete. (Plat. rep. 7, ὅ40 4.), Gal. i. 8f.; see Hm. Vig. 884; 
Jacob, Lucian. Tox. p. 143; Weber, Dem. p. 473. Cf. Her. 8, 86; Xen. 
265 Ὁ. 4,1, 1ὅ ; Plat. Phaed. 93 Ὁ. ; Isocr. Evag. p. 462; Lucian. dial. τὰ. 6, 3; 
bth οἱ. Dio Chr. 69, 621. In most cases of this nature εἰ or ἐάν repeated might 
be used with equal propriety, though the choice of the one conjunction or 
the other would obviously proceed from a different conception of the rela- 
tion ; see Fr. Conject. I. 25. In two mutually subordinate clauses «i and 
ἐάν are distinguished from each other in Jno. xiii. 17 εἰ ταῦτα οἴδατε, 
μακάριοί ἐστε, ἐὰν ποιῆτε αὐτά, tf ye know...in case ye do, and 1 Cor. 
vii. 36 εἴ τις ἀσχημονεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν παρθένον αὑτοῦ νομίζει, ἐὰν ἢ ὑπέρακμος ete. 
— Rey. ii. 5; ef. Κυῦ. 172. 

3. Particles of time (Krii. 175) which 1) in narration denote a 
definite past event (when, while, etc.) are naturally construed 
with the Indicative Pret. or historical Pres.; as ὅτε Matt. vii. 28; 
ix.25; Mark xi.1; xiv.12; Lukeiv. 25; 1 Cor. xiii. 11; ὡς Matt. 

312 xxviii. 9; Luke i. 23; vii.12; Jno. iv. 40; Acts xvi. 4, etc., ὁπότε 
Luke vi. ὃ, ἡνίκα 2 Cor. iii. 15 (Lchm. and Tdf.) ef. Klotz p. 613. 
So likewise ἕως and ἕως of! Matt. i. 25; 11. 9; Jno. ix. 18; Acts 
xxi. 26, οἷο. ; Mtth.1197f. Those which 2) denote a future event 
(when, as soon as, until) likewise govern, a) if they refer to a dis- 
tinctly conceived event, the Indicative (Fut.); as, Jno. iv. 21 
ἔρχεται ὥρα, OTe... προςκυνήσετε τῷ πατρί, Luke xvii. 22 
ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι, ὅτε ἐπιθυμήσετε, xiii. 86; Jno.v.25; xvi.25; see 
Hm: Vig. 915. After ἕως the Pres. Ind. is in a few instances used 
for the Fut. (§ 40, 2); as, Jno. xxi. 22; 1 Tim. iv. 13 ἕως ἔρχομαι 
(like ἕως ἐπάνεισιν Plut. Lycurg. c. 29).2 The Pres. Ind. after ὅτε 


p- 851), sometimes without MS. authority (Arist. anim. 7, 4 p. 210 Sylb.). On the 
other hand, we find in Dinarch. ὁ. Philocl. 2, even in Bekker’s edition, ἐὰν... εἴληφε, 
which, according to Klotz’s remarks, is not to be altered. 

1 This phrase (equivalent to our until) is not peculiar to later prose, except when 
used without ἄν. Even in Her. 2, 143 we find ἕως οὗ ἀπέδεξαν, and in Xen. A. 1, 7, 6; 
5, 4, 16 etc., μέχρις οὗ, so frequently in Plutarch., more fully μέχρι τούτου, ἕως οὗ 
Palaeph. 4, 2. 

2 In the sense of as long as, €ws denoting something actual is used as naturally with 
the Ind. Jno. ix. 4 (xii. 35 var.; Plat. Phaed. 89 c.; Xen. C.1,6,9; 7, 2,22; Plutarch. 
educ. 9, 27 etc. ; Klotz, Devar. II. 565). The same mood is used after the Imperat. in 
Matt. v. 25 ἴσθι εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀντιδίκῳ σου ταχύ, ἕως ὅτου εἶ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ per’ αὐτοῦ, where the 
Subjunctive might have been expected, as a merely possible case is indicated. This 
statement, however, contains a general truth, in which the case in question is represented 


— Sid! 





§41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 997 


differs from this. That is employed in general truths ; as, Jno. 

ix. 4 ἔρχεται νὺξ ὅτε (1.6. ἐν ἡ) οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐργάζεσθαι, Heb. 

ix. 17 ἐπεὶ μήποτε ἰσχύει (διαθήκη), ὅτε ζῇ ὁ διαθέμενος, see Hm. 

as above, 915. b) Lf, however, the future event is only (objec- 
tively) possible, though viewed as under certain circumstances sure 279 
to take place, the Subjunctive with a particle of time compounded ‘4 
with ἄν (ὅταν, ἐπάν, ἡνίκα dv) is usually employed, see ὃ 42. The 
same construction is used, when the particle of time indicates a 
duration or a future repetition (ὅταν, ὁσάκις dv), or a point of time 

till which something is to continue (ἕως ἄν) Mtth. 1199. In the 
latter case, however, the Subjunctive alone with ἕως, ἕως οὗ, ἄχρι, 
πρίν, ete. often occurs, particularly in the later authors; as, Mark 266 
xiv. 82 καθίσατε ὧδε, ἕως προςεύξωμαι until I shall have prayed, *% 
2 Pet. i. 19 καλῶς ποιεῖτε mposéyovtes ... ἕως οὗ ἡμέρα διαυγάσῃ, 
Luke xiii. 8 ἄφες αὐτὴν καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ἔτος, ἕως ὅτου σκάψω περὶ αὐτήν, 

xii. δ0; xv.4; χχὶ. 94: xxii. 16; χχίν. 49 (Heb. χ. 18); 2 Thess. 

ii. 7; 1 Cor. xi. 26; xv. 25; Gal. iii. 19; Eph. iv. 18 ; Luke ii. 26 

μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον, πρὶν ἢ ἴδῃ τὸν Χριστόν. See Plutarch. Cat. min. 

89 ἄχρις οὗ τὴν ἐσχάτην τύχην τῆς πατρίδος ἐξελέγξωμεν, Caes. 7 
μέχρις οὗ καταπολεμηθῇ Κατιλίνας, Plato, Eryx 592 ο. ; Aesch. dial. 
2,1; Lob. Phryn. p. 14 sq.; Stallb. Plat. Phileb. p. 61 sq.; Held, 313 
Plutarch. Timol. p. 369 sq. ; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p.568. The lucid 
distinction which Hm. lays down, part. av p. 109 sq. (restricting it, 
however, immediately, p. 111) ef. Klotz, Devar. 568, however easily 

it finds support in the preceding passages, would vanish again as 
respects the N. T. on a comparison of the passages with ἕως ἄν 

§ 42,5. In Rev. xx. 5 οἱ λοιποὶ... οὐκ ἔζησαν, ἕως τελεσθῇ τὰ 
χίλια ἔτη does not mean, till they were completed (narratively), . 
but is a concise expression: they remained (and remain) dead, till 

the thousand years shall be completed. 3) The Opt. (without ἄν) 
occurs but once in the N. T. after a particle of time in orat. obliq. 
Acts xxv. 16 οὐκ ἔστιν ἔθος Ῥωμαίοις χαρίξεσθαί twa ἄνθρωπον εἰς 
ἀπώλειαν, πρὶν ἢ ὁ κατηγορούμενος κατὰ πρόςωπον ἔχοι τοὺς κατη- 
γόρους, τόπον τε ἀπολογίας λάβοι ete. See Klotz p. 727. In 
other places, where this mood might be expected, we find the 
Subjunctive, as in Matt. xiv. 22; Acts xxiii. 12, 14,21; Mark ix.9; 
Luke ii. 26; Rev. vi. 11; this may be in part accounted for by a 
blending of the orat. recta and obliqua, see below, no. 5. With 


as real. On the other hand, in Luke xvii. 8 διακόνει μοι, ἕως φάγω καὶ πίω (ἄν is omitted 
in the better Codd. [Sin. also]) the Subjunctive is employed in reference to an uncertain 
limit in the future. 

30 


298 8 410. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 


Matt. as above, cf. Thuc. 1, 137 τὴν ἀσφάλειαν εἶναι μηδένα ἐκβῆναι 
ἐκ τῆς νεώς, μέχρι πλοῦς γένηται, Alciphr. 8, 64; Poppo, Thue. 
I. I. 142; Krii. 177. Once indeed in such a case, Mark vi. 45 
(which Fr. has left wholly unnoticed), the Indicative even is fully 
established, which is to be accounted for in a similar way ; see Mey. 

In Luke xiii. 35 ἕως ἥξει, ὅτε εἴπητε the Subjunctive is joined also 
with ὅτε, a construction that could hardly be vindicated by Attic prose 
(Klotz 688) ; but (de eventu) it is not incorrect: quando dixeritis. The 
Ind. Fut. would be more suitable in the mouth of Christ, and would cor- 
respond better to ἥξει (Diod.S. Exc. Vat. 103, 31 Lips.). Besides, compare 


as to ὅτε with the Subjunctive, Jacobs, Anthol. pal. 111. 100 and in Act. 
Monae. I. II. 147. 


4, INTERROGATIVES in indirect questions are construed, 
280 a. With the Indicative, when the question refers to a matter of 
ith el. fact 1.6. to the existence of something (1s i? is it not?) or to the 
condition of something existing (how ? where? wherefore? etc.), 
whether the principal clause contain a Pres. ora Pret. (Plut. Arist. 
7; Xen. A. 2,6,4; Plat. Phil. 22 a.; rep. 1, 330 e.; conv. 194 6. ; 
Diog. L. 2, 69; Klotz, Devar. 508); as, Mark xv. 44 ἐπηρώτησεν 
αὐτόν, εἰ πάλαι ἀπέθανεν, Matt. xxvi. 63; Jno. i. 40 εἶδον ποῦ μένει, 
267 Mark v. 16 δωγγήσαντο αὐτοῖς, πῶς ἐγένετο τῷ δαιμονιζομένῳ, Acts 
δι οἰ, x. 18 ἐπίστασθε... πῶς μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν ἐγενόμην (he had actually 
314 been with them), 1 Thess. i. 9 ἀπαγγέλλουσιν, ὁποίαν εἴςοδον Ea χο- 
μεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, Jno. ix. 21 πῶς νῦν βλέπ ει, οὐκ οἴδαμεν, Vs. 15; x. 6 
οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τίνα Hv ἃ ἐλάλει what it was (meant), iil. 8; vii. 27 ;. 
xx. 13; Acts v. 8; xii. 18; xv. 36; xix. 2; Luke xxiii. 6; Col. 
iv.6; Eph. i. 18; 1 Cor. i. 16; iii. 10 ; 2 Thess. iii. 7; 1 Tim. iii. 15, 
also Jno. ix. 25 (where ἁμαρτωλὸν εἶναι had been asserted) : whether 
he 7s a sinner or not. In such instances the Latin language, as is 
well known, taking a different view of the case employs the Subjunc- 
tive! The tense of the direct question is introduced into an indirect 
question in Acts x. 18 ἐπυνθάνετο, εἰ Σίμων ἐνθάδε ἕεν ἰζεται, Heb. 
xi. 8; cf. Plat. apol. 21 b. ἠπόρουν, τί ποτε λέγει, Plutarch. Opp. II. 
208 b., 220 f., 221 οἷ; 230 f., 231 c. ete.; Polyb. 1, 60, 6; 4,69, 3; 
Diog. L. 6, 42 ; 2,69, and, in general, very frequently, not to say uni- 
formly, in Greek authors. 
b. With the Subjunctive, when something objectively possible, 
something which may or should take place, is to be expressed (Klotz, 


1 In Greek the Objective is expressed in the Objective mood ; in Latin, the Objective, 
made to depend on the act of asking and inquiring, is for that reason put as a mere 
conception : interrogo quid sit. Cf. Jen. L. Ζ. 1812. no. 194. 


§41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 999 


Devar. 511) ; as, Matt. viii. 20 6 υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἔχει, Tod τὴν 
κεφαλὴν κλίνῃ, where he may lay, ubi reponat, Krit. 166; Rom. 
viii. 26 τί προςευξώμθα καθὸ δεῖ, οὐκ οἴδαμεν what we should 
pray for (as to the var. προςευξόμεθα, see Fr. in loc.), Matt. vi. 25 ; 

x. 19; Mark xiii..11; Luke xii. 5,11; Heb. viii. 3; 1 Pet. v. 8; 

οἵ, Stallb. Plat. Phaed. p. 202 and rep. I. 72; Xen. Mem. 2, 1, 21; 
Cyr. 1, 4,13; Anab. 1, 7,7; 2,4, 19; Isocr. paneg. ὁ. 41; Plat. 
rep. 368 "Ὁ. Likewise after a Pret., as in Acts iv. 21 μηδὲν evpi- 
σκοντες TO πῶς κολάσωνται αὐτούς. Luke xix. 48; xxii. 2; Mark 

iii. 6 συμβούλιον ἐποίουν... ὅπως αὐτὸν ἀπολέσωσι, xi. 18; xiv. 1, 
40., where the Opt. might be used (Lucian. dial. d. 17,1; 25,1 
etc., Kiihner II. 103; Hm. Vig. 741), but the Subjunctive is used 
inasmuch as there is a reference to the direct question they put to 
each other: πῶς αὐτὸν ἀπολέσωμεν (deliberative Subjunct. cf. Thuc. 

2, 52.). 

ΤῊ such cases the Fut. Ind. also may be used for the Subjunctive (owing 

to the affinity between these two forms?) ; as, Phil. i. 22 τί αἱρήσομαι 281 
(without var.), οὐ γνωρίζω what I am to choose, Mark ix. 6, see Demosth. 1h οἱ 
funebr. 162 b.; Thue. 7, 14; Herod. 5, 4, 16; Jacob, Lucian. Toxar. 151. 315 
On the other hand, there is the testimony of the most distinguished Codd. 
[Sin..also] for ἀρέσῃ in 1 Cor. vii. 32, 33, 34. But in Mark iii. 2 παρετήρουν 
αὐτόν, <i... θεραπεύσει means: whether he will (would) heal, and the Fut. 

is necessary, as in 1 Cor. vii. 16. See Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 249. 


ο. The Optative is used to denote subjective possibility — a mere 
conception; hence in narration after a Pret. if a person is introduced 
with a question referring simply to his idea alone; as Luke xxii. 23 
ἤρξαντο συζητεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτούς, τὸ Tis dpa εἴη ἐξ αὐτῶν who he might 268 
be i.e. whom they should regard as, i. 29 (2 Mace. iii. 87) ; iii. 15 ; δ 
villi. 9; xv. 26; xvili. 86; Acts xvii. 11 ἐδέξαντο τὸν λόγον ... 
ἀνακρίνοντες τὰς γραφάς, εἰ ἔχοι ταῦτα οὕτως whether these things 
were so, xxv. 20; οἵ, Her. 1, 46; 3, 28, 64; Xen. A. 1, 8,15; 2, 
1,15; C.1,4,6,and Hm. as above, 742. See, further, Acts xvii. 27 
ἐποίησε... πᾶν ἔθνος ... ζητεῖν τὸν θεόν, εἰ ἄραγε ψηλαφήσειαν if 
haply they might feel after etc., Acts xxvii. 12 (Thue. ii. T7) see 
Mtth. 1213; Klotz p. 509. 


Acts xxi. 33 ἐπυνθάνετο, τίς ἂν εἴη καὶ τί ἐστι πεποιηκώς throws 
especial light on the distinctive import of the moods in dependent clauses 
after τίς ete. That the prisoner had committed some offence was certain, 
or was assumed by the centurion as certain, and τί ἐστι π΄. inquires after the 


1 Hm. Eurip. Io p. 155: ubique in conjunctivo inest futuri notatio, cujus ille cumque 
temporis sit. Cf. Bmiln. 106f. 


800 §41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 


matter of fact of the πεποιηκέναι ; but who the prisoner might be was a point 
on which the centurion wished then for the first time to form an idea 
Cf. Xen. Eph. 5, 12 ἐτεθαυμάκει, τίνες τε ἦσαν καὶ τί βούλοιντο, Stallb. 
Plat. Euthyphr. p. 107 ; Jacob, Lucian. Tox.139. See also Dio Chr. 35, 
429; 41,499; Heliod. 1, 25, 46; 2, 15, 81. 

In the phrase οὐδείς ἐστιν ds or τίς ἐστιν ὅς (of similar import), even fol- 
lowed by the Fut., the Indicative is always and properly used; as, Matt. x. 26 
οὐδέν ἐστι κεκαλυμμένον, ὃ οὐκ ἀποκαλυφθήσεται there is nothing covered, 
which shall not be revealed (though the Romans would have said: nihil est, 
quod non manifestum futurum sit), xxiv. 2; 1 Cor. vied; Phil. ii. 20; Acts 
xix. 85; Heb. xii. 7 (Judith viii. 28; Tob. xiii. 2); ef. Vig. p. 196sq.; 
Bhdy. 890. The Subjunctive occurs only once in connection with the 
Ind.: Luke viii. 17 οὐ γάρ ἐστι κρυπτόν, ὃ ob φανερὸν γενήσεται, οὐδὲ ἀπόκρυφον, 
ὃ οὐ γνωσθήσεται καὶ εἰς φανερὸν ἔλθῃ (BL [Sin.] have ὃ οὐ μὴ γνωσθῇ καὶ 
εἰς φανερὸν ἔλθῃ). See below, ὃ 42,3b. The passage adduced by Lob. 
Phryn. 736 from Joseph. Antt. 13, 6 is also not fully established. As to 
the import of this Subjunctive, see below, § 42, 3b, p. 307. 

In Jno. vii. 85 the Fut. Indic. is quite according to rule: ποῦ οὗτος μέλλει 
πορεύεσθαι (λέγων), ὅτι ἡμεῖς οὐχ εὑρήσομεν αὐτόν ; whither will this man go, 
since (according to his statement, vs. 84) we shall not find him? In οὐχ 

316 εὑρήσ. the words uttered by him (vs. 34) are repeated in the tense and 
mood of direct discourse. Acts vii. 40 (a quotation from the O. T.) is also 

922 quite correct: ποίησον ἡμῖν θεούς, οἱ προπορεύσονται ἡμῶν qui antecedant 

Tth ed. (see Mtth. 1145), Phil. ii. 20; 1 Cor. ii. 16; cf. Demosth. Polycl. 711 b.; 
Plat. Gorg. 513 ete. ; Xen. Hell. 2, 3, 2; Aristot. Nic. 9, 11. 

The use of the Indic. Fut. after εἰ or εἰ dpa, also, is worthy of notice in 
cases such as Acts viii. 22 δεήθητι τοῦ θεοῦ, εἰ ἄρα ἀφεθήσεταΐ σοι ἡ ἐπίνοια 
τῆς καρδίας σου, Mark xi. 18 ἦλθεν, εἰ ἄρα εὑρήσει τι ἐν αὐτῇ he came, if haply 
he might find etc. (in Latin, δὲ forte ... inveniret). The words are here 
expressed in the mood which the speaker himself would employ: I will 
go and see, whether I shall find, etc. The Ind. Fut. after εἴπως Rom. i. 10 
is of a different description, but equally well established. 

In Eph. v. 15 if the sense had been: take heed how you may (can) walk 

269 exactly the Subjunctive or Fut. Indicative must have been employed. 

Sth ed. With the Indic. Pres. the question refers to the manner in which the 
ἀκριβῶς περιπατεῖν, as a Christian duty, is carried into effect; see how you 
realize the ἀκριβ. περιπατ., how you set about living accurately. Cf. 
Fritzsch. Opuse. p. 209. 1 Cor. iii. 10 ἕκαστος βλεπέτω πῶς ἐποικοδομεῖ is 
not exactly similar to the preceding, inasmuch as in this passage after 
ἄλλος ἐποικοδομεῖ there can be no doubt that reference is made to a matter 
of fact. 


5. The Optative in the oratio obliqua (Hm. Soph. Trach. p. 18) 
but rarely appears: Acts xxv. 16 πρὸς ods ἀπεκρίθην ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν 
ἔθος Ῥωμαίοις χαρίζεσθαί τινα ἄνθρωπον, πρὶν ἢ ὁ κατηγορούμενος 


8410. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 301 


κατὰ πρόςωπον ἔχοι τοὺς κατηγόρους τόπον τε ἀπολογίας λάβοι 
etc. ; and indeed the instances in which the words of another are 
indirectly quoted are rare in the N.T. When such instances 
occur the Indicative is commonly used; either because the inter- 
mediate clause where the Optative might have been expected is 
uttered in the person of the narrator (Bmln. 270) Luke viii. 47 ; 
Matt. xviii. 25; Mark ix. 9; Acts xxii. 24, or because by a ming- 
ling of two constructions the mood of the oratio recta is used for 
that of the oratio obliqua (which was perhaps in special accordance 
with colloquial usage) ; as, Acts xv. 5 ἐξανέστησάν τινες TOV... 
Φαρισαίων, λέγοντες ὅτι δεῖ περιτέμνειν etc., Luke xviii. 9 εἶπε καὶ 
πρός τινας τοὺς πεποιθότας ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς, ὅτι εἰσὶ δίκαιοι (on the con- 
trary, Mtth. 1222), Acts xii. 18 ἦν τάραχος οὐκ ὀλίγος ... τί ἄρα 
ὁ Πέτρος ἐγένετο, ix. 27; xxiii. 20; 1 Οον. 1. 156. Something 
similar occurs in Attic authors (though for the most part in 
lengthened sentences) Isocr. Trapez. 860; Demosth. Phorm. 586 
and Polycl. 710, 711; Lys. caed. Eratosth. 19; Xen. Cyrop. 2, 4, 
3; 3,2, 27; 4,5, 36; Hell. 2, 1, 24, and later writers Aelian. 11, 
9; Diog. L. 2, 32,74; Pausan. 6,9, 1. See Heindorf, Plat. Soph. 317 
Ρ. 439 sq.; Mtth. 1224 sq.; Bhdy. 389. 


Note 1. The consecutive particle ὥςτε is usually construed with the 
Infin. (as the simple Infin. may be employed in a consecutive sense), cf. 
ὃ 44. Yet the Finite verb is used, not only where ὥςτε begins a new 
clause (in the sense of quare, itaque),— sometimes in the Indic. as in 283 
Matt. xii. 12; xix. 6; xxiii. 31; Rom. vii. 4; xiii. 2; 1 Cor. xi. 27; xiv. 22; Τὰ ed 
2 Cor. iv. 12; v.16; Gal. iii. 9; iv.7; 1 Thess. iv. 18; 1 Petviv. 19, ete. 
(Gayler de partic. negat. p. 218sq.), and sometimes in the Conjunct. 
exhort. as in 1 Cor. v. 8 and the Imperat. as in 1 Cor. iii. 21; x.12; Phil. 
ii. 12; iv. 1; Jas. i. 19, ete. (Soph. El. 1163; Plutarch. Them. c. 27),— 
but also where the clause with ὥςτε forms a necessary complement to the 
preceding clause, as in Jno. iii. 16 οὕτως ἠγάπησεν ὃ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥςτε ... 
ἔδωκεν, Gal. ii. 13 (but in Acts xiv. 1 οὕτως ὥςτε with Inf.). This construction 
is very common also in Greek authors. Thus ὥςτε occurs with a Finite 
verb after οὕτω in Isocr. Areopag. p. 343, 354; de big. p. 838 ; Aegin. 
p- 922; Evag. 476; Lysias pro Mantith. 2, and pro mil. 17; Xen. C. 1, 4, 
15; 2, 2,10; Diog. L. 9, 68, after εἰς τοσοῦτον in Isoer. de big. p. 836 ; 
Soph. Oed. R. 533; see Gayler as above, 221 sq. Cf. Schaef. Plutarch. V. 
248. The distinction at least in the better authors seems to be this: ὥςτε 
with the Indic. presents the facts in succession purely externally as ante- 270 
cedent and consequent; while with the Inf. it brings them into closer 6th ed 
connection as issuing one from the other, Klotz 772; cf. Bmln. 88. 

Note 2. “OgeAov (ὥφελον) is in the N.T. (as in later Greek) treated 


γ 


318 


284 


302 842. THE CONJUNCTION "ἊΝ WITH THE THREE MOODS. 


quite as a particle, and construed with the Indic.; a. Of the Preterite, 
1 Cor. iv. 8 ὄφελον ἐβασιλεύσατε would that ye did reign, Imperf. 2 Cor. 
Xi. 1 ὄφελον ἀνείχεσθέ pov μικρόν would that ye had patience with me for a 
little; Ὁ. Of the Fut. Gal. v.12. With this construction of ὄφελον cf. 
Arrian. Epictet. 2,18, 15 ὄφελόν τις μετὰ ταύτης ἐκοιμήθη, Gregor. orat. 
28 (Exod. xvi. 3; Num. xiv. 2; xx. 3). When ὄφελον had once come to 
be regarded as a particle, the former construction was just as correct in 
thought as the Imperf. or Aor. Indic. after εἴθε, Mtth. 1161; Klotz, Devar. 
516 (aor. de re, de qua, quom non facta sit olim, nunc nobis gratum fore 
significamus, si facta esset illo tempore) ; the Fut., however, took the place 
of the Opt. In Rey. iii. 15 some Codd. have ὄφελον ψυχρὸς εἴης, others ἧς. 
Both readings make equally good sense. 


42, THE CONJUNCTION ἊΝ WITH THE THREE MOODS. 


1. The particle ἄν, which in general imparts to the expression 
the impress of being dependent on circumstances (a fortuita qua- 
dam conditione), and accordingly conditional and fortuitous (Hm. 
Vig. 903, 820; de partic. ἄν p. 10 sq.), forte, si res ita ferat, perhaps, 


ith el. nerchance (should the case occur),2 is used with one of the three 


271 
bth ed. 


moods either in an independent or a dependent clause. Yet its 
use in the N. T. (as in general in later. Greek) is far less copious 
and diversified than in classic (Attic) writers ;* in particular, it is 
never found joined with a participle. In independent and simple 
clauses ἄν occurs in the N. T., 


1 Compare, as to the use of this particle, the following monographs: Poppo, Pr. de 
usu partic. ἄν apud Graecos. Fref. ad Viad. 1816. 4to. (also in Seebode’s Miscell. crit. 
I. 1), Reisig de vi et usu ἄν particulae in his edit. of Aristoph. nub. (Lips. 1820. 8vo.) 
p- 97-140. I have mainly followed the theory of Hermann, from which the views of 


. Buttmann, and still more those of Thiersch (Acta Monac. IJ. 101 sqq.), partly differ. 


It is most fully expounded in libb. 4 de particula ἄν, which are printed in the London 
edition of Stephanus’s Thesaurus, as well as in Hermann’s Opuscul. Tom. IV., and 
which were also published separately in Leipsic, 1831. 8vo. With Hermann on all the 
main points Klotz Devar. II. 99 agrees, while Hartung Partik. II. 218 ff. widely dissents 
from both. The opinion hitherto accepted respecting the import of ἄν has been com- 
pletely reversed by B. Matthiae in his Lexic. Eurip. I. 189 sqq. ; he pronounces it to be 
rather a corroborating and affirming particle, and gives us to understand that his view 
is a divina et qua nihil unquam verius exstitit descriptio. Further, compare Baumlein 
on the Greek Moods (see above p. 281) and Moller in Schneidewin, Philolog. VI. 719 ff. 

2 Perhaps the halt of the South of Germany may also be compared with it. 

8 In the Sept. ἄν does not occur more seldom than in the N. T. (Bretschneid. Lexic. 
p- 22 says: multo rarius). It occurs in hypothetical clauses, where it is required. It 
is also sometimes construed with the Optative, as in Gen. xix. 8; xxxiii. 10; xliv. 8, 
and with the Participle in 2 Macc. i. 11 ; 8 Macc.iv.1. It occurs on almost every page. 
As to ἄν in the Apocrypha, see Wahl, Clay. apocr. p. 84 sqq. 


§ 42. THE CONJUNCTION “AN WITH THE THREE MOODS. 303 


a. With the Aorist Indic. to indicate that something on a certain 
condition would have taken place (in which use a hypothetical 
proposition is implied in the context) Mtth. 1154 f.; Rost 606 f.; 
as, Luke xix. 23 διὰ τί οὐκ ἔδωκας τὸ ἀργύριόν μου ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν ; 
καὶ ἐγὼ ἐλθὼν σὺν τόκῳ ἂν ἔπραξα αὐτό, J should (had the διδόναι 
τὸ ἀργύρ. ἐπὶ τὴν τράπ. occurred) have collected it with interest. 
Here the omitted protasis may be easily gathered from the ques- 
tion διὰ ti... τράπεζαν. The same remark applies to the parallel 
passage in Matt. xxv. 27 ἔδει ce βαλεῖν τὸ ἀργύριόν μου τοῖς τραπε- 
ζίταις, καὶ ἐλθὼν ἐγὼ ἐκομισάμην ἂν τὸ ἐμὸν σὺν τόκῳ, aud Heb. x. 2 
ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο προςφερόμεναι, where we may supply from 
vs. 1: if these sacrifices had perfected forever the offerers, — com- 
pletely cleansed them from sin (Xen. A. 4, 2,10; Thuc. 1, 11; 319 
Plat. symp. 175d.; rep. 8, 554 b.; Aristot. rhet. 2, 2,11; Diog. 
L.2,75). Cf. Sept. Gen. xxvi. 10; Job iii. 10, 13 (Pluperf. 2 Sam. 
xviii. 11). 

b. With the Optative, when subjective possibility is attached to 
condition (opinio de eo, quod ex aliqua conditione pendet, Hm. 
partic. ἄν 164 sqq.),! Acts xxvi. 29 εὐξαίμην ἂν τῷ θεῷ (I could 
willingly pray God, i.e. were I to be guided by what I feel — were 
I to follow the wish of my heart). This phrase (corresponding to 
βουλοίμην adv) occurs in Dio C. 86, 10, and εὔξαιτ᾽ ἄν τις in Xen. 
hipparch. 8, 6, ὡς ἂν ἐγὼ εὐξαίμην Diog. L. 2,76. We find a 
similar phrase, ἀξιώσαιμ᾽ ἄν, in Liban. oratt. p. 200 b. In direct 
questions: Acts ii, 12 λέγοντες τί ἂν θέλοι τοῦτο εἶναι ; what may 
this perhaps mean? (1 assume it must mean something), xvii. 18 285 
τί ἂν θέλοι ὁ σπερμολόγος οὗτος λέγειν ; (it being assumed that "ee 
his words have some meaning or other), Luke vi.11 ; Gen. xxiii.15; 
Deut. xxviii. 67 ; Job xix. 23; xxv.4; xxix.2; xxxi.31; Ecclus. 
xxv. 8. Cf. Od. 21, 259; Xen. C.1, 4,12; Diog. L. 2,5; Krii. 163. 


Acts viii. 31 is equivalent to a hypothetical construction: πῶς ἂν δυναίμην, 
ἐὰν μή τις ὁδηγήσῃ με; for without a question it would run: οὐκ ἂν ihe 
ef. Xen. Apol. 6 ἢν αἰσθάνωμαι χείρων γιγνόμενος ... πῶς ἂν... . ἐγὼ ἔτι ἂν 
ἡδέως βιοτεύοιμει ; 

We find ἄν (according to most Codd. [Sin. included]) without a mood 
(Hm. partic. ἄν, p. 187) in 1 Cor, vii. 5 μὴ ἀποστερεῖτε ἀλλήλους, εἰ μή τι 
ἂν ἐκ συμφώνου, except perhaps in case of mutual consent. 


2. After conditional clauses with εἰ we find ἄν in the apodosis 


1 Klotz p. 104: Adjecta ad optativum ista particula hoe dicitur : nos rem ita animo 


cogitare, si quando fiat, i.e. rem, si fiat, ita fieri oportere ex cogitatione quidem nostra, 
Cf. Mdv. 148 f. 


804 §42. THE CONJUNCTION ἊΝ WITH THE THREE MOODS. 


with the Indicative to denote hypothetical reality (Rost 627; 
Mtth. 1147 f.), 
a. With the Imperf. (usually), when I would do it is to be 
expressed, a. After an Imperf. in the antecedent clause, as in Luke 
Vii. 39 οὗτος εἰ ἣν προφήτης, ἐγίνωσκεν ἄν ete. were he a prophet, 
272 he would know, xvii. 6 ; Matt. xxiii. 30 (Fr.) ; Jno. v. 46; (viii. 19) ; 
Shel viii, 42; ix. 41; xv. 19; xviii. 86; Gal. i. 10; Heb. viii. 4,7; 
1 Cor. xi. 831; Acts xviii. 14; cf. 2 Macc. iv. 47; Valckenaer ad 
Lue. xvii. 6. 8. After an Aor. in the antecedent clause, as in Heb. 
iv. 8 εἰ yap αὐτοὺς ᾿Ιησοῦς κατέπαυσεν, οὐκ ἂν περὶ ἄλλης ἐλάλει if 
J. had given them rest, he would not speak etc. (in the words pre- 
820 viously quoted vs. 5) cf. in vs. 7 the Pres, ὁρίζει ; Gal. iii. 21 (ef. 
Jer. xxiii. 22; Baruch iii. 13). 
b. With the Aor., when J would have done it is to be expressed 
(Hm. Vig. 813), Matt. xi. 21 εἰ ἐγένοντο... πάλαι ἂν μετενόησαν 
¥f ... had been done, they would have repented long ago, 1 Cor. ii. 8 ; 
Rom. ix. 29; Sept. Gen. xxx. 27; xxxi. 27, 42; xliii. 9; Judg. 
xiii. 23; xiv. 18; Isa. i. 9; xlviii. 18; Ps. 1.18; liv. 13; Judith 
xi. 2, etc. (in the conditional clause also the Aor. is used) ; Jno. 
Xiv. 28 εἰ ἠγαπᾶτέ με, ἐχάρητε av if ye loved me, ye would have 
rejoiced, xviii. 30; Acts xviii. 14 (the Imperf. in the conditional 
clause, Bar. iii. 13); Matt. xii. 7 εἰ ἐγνώκειτε .. . οὐκ ἂν κατεδικάσατε 
had ye known, ye would not have condemned (the Pluperf. in the 
conditional clause, cf. Demosth. Pantaen. p. 624 b. ; Liban. oratt. 
Ρ. 117 ¢.); Judg. viii. 19; Jobiv. 12. In this case the Plup. 
also is used instead of the Aor. with ἄν, as in 1 Jno. ii. 19 εἰ 
ἧσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν, μεμενήκεισαν av μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν mansissent (atque adeo 
manerent), Jno. xi. 21 (vs. 82 Aor.) xiv. 7 (Soph. Oed. R. 984 ; 
Aeschin. Ctes. 8510 ἃ. ; Demosth. cor. 524 ἃ. ; Plat. Phaed. 106. ; 
Diog. L. 3,39; Aesop. 31,1; Lucian. fugit. 1; cf. Hm. partic. ἄν 
p-50). See in general Hm. partic. ἄν I.cap.10. The translators 
of the N. T. have sometimes been ignorant of this distinction of 
tenses, and sometimes have passed it over without notice. (The 
consequent clause with ἄν is absorbed by an interrogative clause in 
286 1 Cor. xii. 19 εἰ ἣν τὰ πάντα ὃν μέλος, ποῦ τὸ σῶμα ; Heb. vii. 11 εἰ 
heh tremors διὰ τῆς ... ἱερωσύνης ἦν, τίς ἔτι χρεία etc. for οὐκέτι ἂν ἣν 
χρεία etc. As to ἄν in the interrogatory apodosis, see Wisd. xi. 26 
πῶς ἔμεινεν ἄν τι, εἰ μὴ σὺ ἠθέλησας ; On Acts viii. 81 see above.) 


In Mark xiii. 20 εἰ μὴ κύριος ἐκολόβωσε ... οὐκ ἂν ἐσώθη πᾶσα σάρξ 
neither of the Aorists is put for the Imperf., but the sense is: had not the 
Lord shortened those days (in his decree), all flesh would have perished 


§ 42, THE CONJUNCTION “AN WITH THE THREE MOODS. 805 


(might be regarded as already perished). In Heb. xi. 15 εἰ μὲν ἐκείνης 
éuvnpdvevov... εἶχον ἂν καιρὸν ἀνακάμψαι the Imperf. is used in the 
principal clause probably because it refers to a continued (past) action 
(Mtth. 1147; Mdy. 117); in Latin also the Imperf. is used in the same 
way (Zumpt, Gramm. 454) haberent: had they in mind ... they had 
opportunity (during their life) to return (and would not therefore, at the 
end of their life vs. 13, have made this profession). ‘The Aor. would have 
represented the ἔχειν καιρόν as something occurring once, and quickly 
passing by. Another view of the Imperf. in hypothetical clauses (Franke, 
Demosth. p. 59, 74) is not to the purpose. 


In the consequent clause ἄν may be omitted also, particularly 
with the Imperf. (Hm. Eurip. Hee. 1087 ; Soph. Elect. p. 132, and 321 
partic. ἄν p. 70 sqq.; Bremi, exc. 4 ad Lys. p. 439 sq.; Mtth. 1152), 273 
and in later Greek was more and more frequently omitted, without * οὶ, 
designing in all cases to express the emphasis (the positiveness) orig- 
inally included in this construction without ἄν (Kiihner II. 850). 
The several examples may be arranged as follows: 

a.) Imperf. in the condition, Imperf. in the conclusion ; as, Jno. 

ix. 88 εἰ μὴ ἣν οὗτος παρὰ θεοῦ, οὐκ ἠδύνατο ποιεῖν οὐδέν were he not 
from God, he could do nothing, Diog. Laert. 2, 24; Lycurg. orat. 
8,4; Plat. sympos. 198 c.; Gorg.514c¢. In Jno. viii. 39 the Codd. 
are about equally divided as to the omission or insertion of ἄν ; if 
it was used by the writer, it may have been merged by transcribers 
in the νῦν which immediately follows. 

b.) Aorist in the conclusion, with the omission of ἦν in the 
condition ; as, Gal. iv. 15 εἰ δυνατὸν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑ ὑμῶν ἀξορύξαντές 
ἐδώκατέ μοι, where there is not much authority for ἄν. 

9.) Aorist in the condition, Imperf. in the conclusion; as, Jno. 

xv. 22 εἰ μὴ ἦλθον ... ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ εἶχον if I had not come, they 
would not have sin, cf. Diog. Laert. 2, 21. 

ἃ.) Pluperf. in the conditional clause (Judg. viii. 19), Imperf. 
in the principal clause ; as, Jno. xix. 11 οὐκ εἶχες ἐξουσίαν οὐδεμίαν 

| kat’ ἐμοῦ, εἰ μὴ ἦν σοι δεδομένον ἄνωθεν thou wouldst not have ... if it 
| had not been given thee, Acts xxvi. 32; Rom. vii. 7 non cognoram 
| ... nisi diceret ; also, in the immediately preceding τὴν ἁμαρτίαν 
etc., where ἔγνων is to be repeated with εἰ μὴ διὰ νόμου. 

This omission of ἄν occurs especially with καλὸν ἦν, ἔδει, ἐχρῆν 287 
etc. Mdv. 119; Bmln. 140 f.; cf. Matt. xxvi. 24 καλὸν ἣν αὐτῷ, εἰ οὐκ Τὰ αὶ, 
ἐγεννήθη etc., see above, ὃ 41 a. 2. a, p. 282. 

1 Similar are such sentences in Latin as Flor. 4, 2,19 peractum erat bellum sine 

. sanguine, si Pompeium opprimere (Caesar) potuisset, Horat. Od. 2, 17,27; Liv. 34, 29; 


Cic. fam. 12, 24,2; Tac. annal.3, 14; Sen. consol. ad Marc. I. See Zumpt, Gr. S. 447. 
34 





806 §42. THE CONJUNCTION “AN WITH THE THREE MOODS. 


2 Cor. xi. 4 εἰ δ ἐρχόμενος ἄλλον Ἰησοῦν κηρύσσει... καλῶς ἀνείχεσθε 
is rendered: if he ... preached, ye would bear with etc. (Cod. B alone has 
ἀνέχεσθε, and it has been so printed by Lchm.). Here one would certainly 
expect ἐκήρυσσεν, but as several words intervene the writer might easily 
have fallen into such an anacoluthon (if... preaches another Jesus ... ye 
would bear with tt aveix., as if he had written ἐκήρυσσεν. As, however, he 
had used κηρύσσει, consistency required ἀνέχεσθε), or in order not to hurt 
the Corinthians he designedly changes the harsh ἀνέχεσθε into the hypo- 
thetical and consequently softer dvecy.; in which case, to be sure, one 

322 would so much the more have expected ἄν, as the antecedent clause does 
not correspond with a hypothetical period (cf. also Klotz, Devar. 487 sq.). 
We find something similar in Diog. L. 2, 69 εἰ τοῦτο φαῦλόν ἐστιν, οὐκ 
ἂν ἐν ταῖς τῶν θεῶν ἑορταῖς ἐγίνετο. The passage in Demosth. Neaer. 
81 ἃ. is of another kind. (That in Rom. iv. 2 ἔχει καύχημα is not put 
for εἶχεν ἄν, as Riick. maintained, is apparent to one who attends to 
Paul’s reasoning, and has been correctly shown by Kollner among recent 
expositors. ) 


974 3. In relative clauses after ὅς, ὅςτις, ὅσος, ὅπου etc., av is used, 

thet ἃ, With the Jndicative when some matter of fact, something 
certain therefore, is spoken of, ** sed cujus vel pars aliqua, vel ratio 
et modus dubitationem admittunt” (Hm. Vig. 819)1; as, Mark 
vi. 56 ὅπου ἂν εἰςεπορεύετο wherever he entered, ubicunque intrabat 
(it might be in different places and repeatedly), ὅσοι ἂν ἥπτοντο 
αὐτοῦ as many as at any time touched him; καθότι dv Acts ii. 45; 
iv. 35, ὡς ἄν 1 Cor. xii. 2. In all these instances with a Pret., as 
in Gen. ii. 19; xxx. 42; Isa. lv.11; 2 Sam. xiv. 26; Ezek. i. 20; 
x. 11; Esth. viii. 17; 1 Mace. xiii. 20, and also in Greek authors, 
as Lucian. dial. m. 9,2, and Demon. 10; Demosth. I. Steph. p. 610 Ὁ. 
(Agath. 82,12; 117, 12; 287,13; Malal. 14,36). On the other 
hand, the Present Ind. (which Klotz p. 109 sqq., in opposition to 
Hm., declares to be inadmissible) in the N. T. in Luke viii. 18; 
x. 8; Jno. v. 19 has not any great external evidence in its favor, 
and in Mark xi. 24 the Ind. without ἄν is to be restored, from Codd. 
[Sin. also], as by Lchm. In the Sept. the Present often occurs, as 
in Ps. ci. 8; Prov. i. 22; Lev. xxv. 16. 


In Matt. xiv. 36 we find ὅσοι ἥψαντο, ἐσώθησαν, instead of the parallel 
in Mark vi. 56 ὅσοι ἂν ἥπτοντο, ἐσώζοντο. Both constructions are proper, 
according as the writer regarded the fact as in every respect definite or 
not. The first must be rendered: all who (as many as) touched him, of 


1 Klotz p. 145: In his locis quum res ipsa, quae facta esse dicatur, certa sit, pertinet 
illud, quod habet in se particula ἄν incerti, magis ad notionem relativam, sive pronomen, 
sive particula est. © 


842. THE CONJUNCTION “AN WITH THE THREE MOODS. 307 





the persons then surrounding him, vs. 35. Mark does not limit the nar- 988 
: ration to any particular place (as ὅπου ἂν eiseropevero shows), but says ith ed 
generally : allwho atany time touchedhim, Cf. Hm. de part. ἄν p. 26. 


b. With the Subjunctive, when the statement relates to some- 
thing objectively possible, that is, regarded as only conditionally 
liable to occur, and then a. In the Aorist (most frequently), of 
what may perhaps occur at a future time,— where in Latin the 
Fut. Perf. would be used; as, Matt. x. 11 εἰς ἣν δ᾽ ἂν πόλιν ἢ κώμην 323 
i eiséXOnre into whatever city ye may have entered, in quamcunque 
urbem, si quam in urbem, xxi. 22 ὅσα ἂν αἰτήσητε quaecunque 
petieritis, xii. 32; Mark ix. 18; xiv. 9; Luke x. 35; Acts ii. 39; 
tii, 22, 23 ; viii. 19; Rom. x. 13; xvi. 2; Jas. iv. 4; 1 Jno. iv. 15; 

; Rev. xiii. 15, ete. For examples from Greek authors, see Bornem. — 
} ad Luec.p.65. From the Sept. cf. Gen. xxi. 6,12; xxii. 2; xxiv. 14; 
xxvi. 2; xxviii. 15; xliv. 9 ἢ ; Exod. i. 223 ix. 19; x. 28; Lev. 

v. 8, 15,17; xi. 82; xx. 6, 9,16 ff.; Num. v.10; vi. 2; Deut. 
xvii. 9; Isa. xi. 11. The Fut. for the Subjunctive occurs in Deut. 
v. 27; Jer. xlix.4; Judg.x.18; xi.24 (Malch. hist. p. 238; Cinnam. 
I. 6, ed. Bonn.) ; Mtth. 1220. 8. In the Present, in reference 
to what may have already taken place or usually takes place, or 
is to be represented as continuous; as, Gal. v.17 ἵνα μὴ, ἃ ἂν 
θέλητε, ταῦτα ποιῆτε (what you may happen to desire), Col. iii. 17 
πᾶν 6,7 ἂν ποιῆτε, 1 Thess. ii. 7 ὡς ἂν τροφὸς θάχπῃ etc., Luke 
ix. 57; Jno. ii. 5; v.19; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Jas. iii. 4; Οὐ]. iii. 23. 275 
See, in general, Hm. part. ἄν p. 113 sqq.; Vig. 819. In the Sept. Sth ὦ 
ef. Gen. vi. 17; xi. 6; 1 Sam. xiv. 7; Lev. xv. 19; Exod. xxii. 9: 
(much more rare than the Aor.). 


In 2 Cor. viii. 12 a double construction occurs: εἰ ἣ προθυμία πρόκειται, 
καθὸ ἐὰν ἔχῃ, εὐπρόςδεκτος, οὐ καθὸ οὐκ ἔχει. The distinction is obvious: 
the positive ἔχειν in the proportion specified (καθό6) may still be viewed as 
various, according to what he may (perchance) have; the negative οὐκ ἔχει 
is simple and definite. Cf. Lev. xxiv. 20; xxv. 16; xxvii. 12; xi. 34 
πᾶν βρῶμα, ὃ ἔσθεται, eis ὃ ἂν ἐπέλθῃ ὕδωρ. 

In Attic prose ἄν is commonly employed where relatives are construed 
with the Subjunctive ; yet there are well-established passages in which ay 
is omitted (Rost 660 f.), and Hm. partic. ἄν p. 113 has shown when it 
must be omitted; cf. Schaef. Demosth. I 657 ; Poppo, observ. p. 143 866. 3 
Jen. Lit.-Zeit. 1816, April, no. 69, and ad Cyrop. p. 129, 209, but see Bmln. 
212 ff. In the N. T. we find according to.good Codd. [Sin. also} in Luke 
Vili. 17 οὐ γάρ ἐστι... ἀπόκρυφον, ὃ ob γνωσθῇ (al. γνωσθήσεται) καὶ εἷς 
φανερὸν ἔλθῃ. which is to be rendered: which may not become known 
and come to light. The relative here points to ἃ perfectly definite con- 


—- 


808 842. THE CONJUNCTION ἊΝ WITH THE THREE MOODS. 


ception, and not to anything whatever, quodcunque. On the other hand, 

one might have expected ἄν in Jas. ii. 10 ὅςτις ὅλον τὸν νόμον τηρήσῃ; πταίσῃ 
289 δὲ ἐν ἑνί, yet it is not necessary, inasmuch as the writer conceives the case 
ith el. as altogether definite: qui (si quis) ... custodiverit. So also in Matt. x. 33. 

Ou the other hand, in Matt. xviii. 4 Lchm. has already adopted the Fut. 


4, In indirect questions ἄν is used with the Optative (after a Pret. 
324 or histor. Pres.) ; as, Luke i. 62 évévevov τῷ πατρί, τὸ τί ἂν θέλοι 
καλεῖσθαι αὐτόν how he may perhaps wish him to be called (assumed 
that he has a wish in the case; τί θέλοι. etc. would be, how he 
wished to have him called), Actsv. 24; x.17 ; xxi. 83 (see above 
§ 41, Ὁ. 5), Luke vi. 11 διελάλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, τί ἂν ποιήσειαν τῷ 
᾿Ιησοῦ what they might do to Jesus, quid forte faciendum videretur 
(pondering in doubtful mood the different possibilities), ix. 46; 
Jno. xiii. 24 according to the reading νεύει τούτῳ Σίμων IT. πυθέσθαι 
τίς ἂν εἴη περὶ οὗ λέγει (who tt might be, whom they should perhaps 
regard). The better reading, however, is νεύει... καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ" 
εἰπὲ τίς ἐστιν περὶ οὗ λέγει. See Klotz p. 509; ef. Esth. iii. 13. 
5. After the particles of time ἄν followed by a Subjunctive (Mtth. 
1194 f.) is used if an (objectively possible) action is to be expressed, 
—a case which can or will occur, but in regard to which there is no 
certainty when (how often) it will occur (Hm. partic. ἄν p. 95 sqq.). 
Thus, a. ὅταν 1.6. ὅτ᾽ ἄν, Matt. xv. 2 νίπτονται τὰς χεῖρας, ὅταν 
ἄρτον ἐσ Oiwauwhen (i.e. as often as) they eat, Jno. viii. 44; 1 Cor. 
iii. 4; Luke xi. 86; xvii. 10 ὅταν ποιήσητε πάντα, λέγετε when ye 
shall have done, Matt. xxi. 40 ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ κύριος ... τί ποιήσει 
276 quando venerit. So usually with the Aorist Subjunctive for the 
Gib. Lat. Fut. exact., as in Mark viii. 88; Jno. iv. 25; xvi. 13; Rom. 
xi. 27; Acts xxiii. 85; 1 Cor. xv. 27; xvi. 3; 1 Jno. ii. 28, also 
Heb. i. 6 (as Béhme and Wahl have already pointed out), while 
the Subj. Present for the most part denotes a frequently repeated 
action not limited to any particular time (Mtth. 1195), or exhibits 
something in itself future simply as a fact, 1 Cor. xv. 24 (along 
with the Subj. Aor.). Similar to this are ἡνίκα ἄν 2 Cor. ili. 16 
(when ... ἐξ shall have turned), ὁσάκις ἄν (as often as) 1 Cor. xi. 25, 
26 (Pres.), ὡς ἄν as soon as Rom. xv. 24; 1 Cor. xi. 34; Phil. ii. 23. 
Ὁ. The conjunction until that, as ἕως ἄν 1 in Matt. x. 11 ἐκεῖ μεί- 
vate, ἕως ἂν ἐξέλθητε, Jas. v. 7; Luke ix. 27, ἄχρις οὗ ἄν in Rev. 
ii. 25 (Gen. xxiv. 14,19; Josh. ii. 16; xx.6,9; Exod. xv. 16; 
Isa. vi. 11; xxvi. 20; xxx. 17; Tob. vii. 11, and often) ; ef. Soph. 


1 We find in parallel clauses in Exod. xv. 16; Jer. xxiii. 20 ἕως with the Subj. and 
ἕως ἄν, according to the common text. 





; 
. 
᾿ 


ὙΥΥ ΡΥ ΡΥ ΡΥ νον ee ee 


eS eS! "- 


a μι 


§42. THE CONJUNCTION “AN WITH THE THREE MOODS. 809 


Oed. R. 834; Xen. C. 3,3, 18 and 46; An. 5,1,11; Plat. Phaed. 
59 6. etc., and usually in Attic prose, Rost 617. Further cf. § 41 Ὁ. 
3,2) Ὁ). Πρὶν ἄν does not occur in the N. T. 


The Fut. after ὅταν in Rev. 4, 9 ὅταν δώσουσι τὰ ζῶα δόξαν ... πεσοῦνται -ἐ- 
oi εἴκοσι τέσσαρες etc., occurs according to a well-established reading for 
the Subjunctive guando dederint, as in liad. 20,335 ἀλλ᾽ ἀναχωρῆσαι, ὅτε 325 
κεν ξυμβλήσεαι αὐτῷς Other Codd. have δῶσι or δώσωσι. In Luke xi. 2; 290 
xiii. 28 ; Matt. x. 19 there is preponderant authority for the Subjunctive. ἴὰ αἱ 
In Rom. ii. 14 the Ind. Pres. ποιεῖ after ὅταν is very doubtful (or rather a 
transcriber’s mistake for ποιῇ)» and we should read with Lchm. and Tdf. 
ποιῶσιν. On the other hand, in Mark xi. 25 στήκετε is supported by good 
Codd., and the Ind. can be as well tolerated (since it is intended to express 
a specification of time only externally: cum statis precantes) according 
to Klotz, Devar. 475 sq., as it is attested by Codd. in Lycurg. 28, 8... In 
this case the Ind. Pres. or Fut. after ὅταν sometimes occurs even in early 
authors, see Klotz’as above, and pp. 477'sq. 690,? where formerly critics 
would not tolerate it (Jacobs, Anthol. pal. III. 61; Achill, Tat. 452; 
Mith. 1197) ; in later authors (cf. e.g. Exod. i. 16; Act. Apocr. 126) it 
frequently occurs (Jacobs in Act. Monac. I. 146; Schaef. ind. Aesop. 149). 

More singular appears, in Mark iii. 11, ὅταν with an Indicative Preter. 
(Imperf.) in narration: τὰ πνεύματα ... ὅταν αὐτὸν ἐθεώρει, προςέπιπτεν 
whenever they saw him (quandocunque), without var.; in Rev. viii. 1 with 
var. A Greek would probably have here employed (ὅτε, ὁπόταν with) 
the Optative, Hm. Vig. 792;* yet in the former passage the Ind. can be 
accounted for as easily as in ὅσοι ἂν ἥπτοντο, see above, 3a. Cf. Gen.” 
xxxvili. 9; Exod. xvii. 11; Num. xi. 9; 1 Sam, xvii. 34; Ps. exix. 7; 
Thiersch p. 100 (and ἡνίκα ἄν Gen. xxx. 42; Exod. xxxiii. 8; xxxiv. 34; 277 
xl. 36, ὁπότε ἐάν Tob. vii. 11, ἐάν Judg. vi. 3, where likewise a repeated 6th ed 
past act is expressed), also Polyb. 4, 32, 5; 13, 7, 10 (see Schweigh. on the 
last passage) ; Aristid. Lept. § 3, 6; ef. Poppo, Thue. III. I. 313.4 In the 
Byzantine authors, ὅταν even in the sense of when (in reference to an indi-' 
vidual fact in time past) is construed with the Ind. Aor.,as in Ephraem. 7119, 
5386, 5732 ; Theoph. p. 499, 503. Cf. also Tdf. in the Verhandel. p. 142. 


6. The particle of design ὅπως with ἄν denotes a purpose the 
accomplishment of which is still doubtful, or is regarded as depend- 
ing on circumstances, ut sit, si sit (see Hm. Eurip. Bacch. 593, 1232; 


1 Bekker has conjectured ὦσι. Others read ὅτ᾽ ἐν, and Blume says distinctly : indica- 
tivus per grammaticas leges h.1. ferri nequit. 

* The passages adduced by Gayler de partic. negat. p. 193 sq. may be regarded for 
the most part as uncertain. 

8 Fr. Mr. p. 801 insists on writing ὅτ᾽ ἄν, in order to show that ἄν here belongs to the 
verb in the sense of always. Cf. Schaef: Demosth. III. 192. Yet see Klotz, Dev. 688 sq. 

* In the Sept. even ὡς ἄν occurs with the Ind. Pret. where a definite past action is 
spoken of, as in Gen. vi. 4; xxvii. 30 ὡς ἂν ἐξῆλθεν Ἰακώβ, ete 


310 § 43. THE IMPERATIVE. 


partic. ἄν p. 120 sq.) ut, si fiert possit, ut forte (ef. Bengel, Acts 
iii. 19; Rom. iii. 4) Isoer. ep. 8, p. 1016 ; Xen. Cyr. 5, 2,21; Plat. 
Gorg. 481 ἃ. ; conv. 187e.; lege. 5, 188 ἃ. ete ; Demosth. Halon. 
32¢.; see Stallb. ad Plat. Lach. p. 24; Krii. 167. This applies 
291 well to the two N. T. passages which come under this head (Acts 
ithed. xy, 17; Rom. iii. 4 are quotations from the O. T.; and in Matt. vi. 5 
826 ἄν is expunged on the authority of many Codd.): Acts iii. 19 ὅπως 
ἂν ἔλθωσιν καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως ut forte (si meae admonitioni μετανο- 
ήσατε καὶ ἐπιστρέψατε parueritis) veniant tempora etc., Luke ii. 35. 
In both the quotations from the Sept. too, particularly in Acts 
xv., the meaning is plain. Besides cf. Gen. xii. 13; xviii. 19; 
]. 20; Exod. xx. 20, 26; xxxiii. 13; Num. xv. 40; xvi. 40; 
xxvii. 20; Deut. viii. 2; xvii. 20; 2 Sam. xvii: 14; Ps. lix. 7; 
Hos. ii, 8; Jer. xlii. 7; Dan. ii. 18; 1 Macc. x. 82. 


"Av after conjunctions and relatives never occurs with the Optative in 
the N. T. (but in Sept. Gen. xix. 8—cf., however, xvi. 6 — xxxiii. 10; 
2 Mace. xv. 21); but once with the Inf. 2 Cor. x. 9 iva μὴ δόξω ὡς ἂν 
ἐκφοβεῖν ὑμᾶς that I may not seem to terrify you; which in oratio recta 
(Hm. de partic. ἄν p. 179; Krii. 811} would run: ὡς ἂν ἐκφοβοῖμι tip. 
tamquam qui velim vos terrere. ; 

According to the best and most numerous authorities ἐάν frequently 
occurs for av in the N. T. text after relatives (as in the Sept. and Apocryph, 
see Wahl, clav. apocryph. p. 137 sq.; Thilo, Act. Thom. p. 8, occasionally 
in the Byzantines, e.g. Malalas 5. p. 94, 144); as, Matt. v. 19 (not vii. 9) ; 
viii. 19; x. 42; xi. 27; Jno. xv. 7; Luke xvii. 33; 1 Cor. vi. 18; xvi. 3; 
Gal. vi. 7; Eph. vi. 8, ete., and not unfrequently in the Codd. of Greek 
authors, even Attic. Recent scholars (in opposition to Schneider, Xen. 
Mem. 3, 10, 12) uniformly write ἄν for ἐάν (see Schaef. Julian. p. V; Hm, 
Vig. 835; Bremi, Lys. p. 126; Boissonade, Aen. Gaz. p. 269; Stallb. 
Plat. Lach. p. 57; a more moderate judgment is given by Jacobs, Athen. 
p- 88; yet see the same author in Lection. Stob. p. 45 and on Achill. Tat, 
p- 831 54.» ef. also Valckenaer ad 1 Cor. vi. 18). The editors of the N. T, 

278 have not yet ventured to do this; and there may really be in ἐάν for ἄν ἃ 

bth ed. peculiarity of the later (if not even of the earlier) popular language much 
like the Germ. etwan in relative clauses: was etwan geschehen sollte 
(when something occurs as it should be). Cf. Luke x. 8. 


ἢ 848. THE IMPERATIVE. 


1. The Imperative usually denotes an exhortation or command, 
but sometimes mere permission (permissivus) or leave (Kru. 


a Le 


ae 


§ 43. THE IMPERATIVE. . $11 


163) 1, as in 1 Cor. vii. 15 εἰ ὁ ἄπιστος χωρίζεται, χωριξέσθω he may 327 
depart (on the part of the Christian partner it cannot and ought 
not to be hindered), xiv. 38 et τις ἀγνοεῖ, ἀγνοείτω (renunciation of 
further effective instruction). Where, however, this acceptation 292 
is necessary, must be determined on hermeneutical, not on gram- ith ed, 
matical, grounds ; and neither in Matt. viii. 32, on account of the 
parallel passage Luke viii. 82, nor in Jno. xiii. 27 or 1 Cor. xi. 6, 
can the Imperative be taken as simply permissive. On the former 
passage ef. BCrus. ; in the latter κειράσθω like κατακαλυπτέσθω is 
to be understood of logical necessity (the one requires the other). 
On the other hand, Matt. xxvi. 45 καθεύδετε τὸ λουπὸν Kal ἀνα- 
παύεσθε was probably uttered permissively by Jesus in the tranquil, 
gentle, resigned mood resulting from the prayer: sleep on then and 
take your rest. The notion of irony is incompatible with the grave 
earnestness of the moment. Perhaps, however, there may be some- 
thing of that in Matt. xxiii. 32, and the tone of the discourse loses 
in force by a permissive interpretation. In Rev. xxii. 11 all is 
exhortation: let every one by adhering to his present course grow 
ripe for Christ’s approaching judgment; the fate of all is, as it 
were, already determined. 

2. When two Imperatives are connected by καὶ, the first contains 
. sometimes the condition (supposition) under which the action 
denoted by the second will take place, or the second expresses an 
infallible result (Mtth. 1159)2; as, Bar. ii. 21 κλίνατε τὸν dpov 
ὑμῶν ἐργάσασθαι τῷ βασιλεῖ... καὶ καθίσατε ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, Epiphan. 
| II. 368 ἔχε τοὺς τοῦ θεοῦ λόγους κατὰ ψυχήν cov καὶ χρείαν μὴ ἔχε 
᾿Επιφανίου. In the N. T. this explanation has been applied to Eph. 
iv. 26. (from Ps. iv. 5.) ὀργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε be angry and 979 
sin not i.e. if ye be angry ye do not sin (Ri), Jno. vii. 52 ἐρεύνησον bth οἱ, 
καὶ ἴδε search, and thow wilt see (Kii.), ef. divide et impera. In 
Hebrew, constructions of this sort are certainly frequent; Ewald, 








—_— 


Ee 


1 According to Moller (Schneidewin, Philolog. VI. 124 ff.) the Imper. Pres. only should 
be so used. This, it is true, is found in the above passages of the N. T.; but the 
question in reference to the N. T. will not be regarded as thereby decided. 

2 What Bornem. on Luke xxiv. 39 adduces from Greek authors, is of a different 
nature. This mode of expression, however, cannot be considered as thereby a Hebra- 
ism; see Gesen. Leb. S. 776 (where, however, some passages are quoted which remain 
doubtful, as Ps. xxxvii. 27, or which at any rate ought to have been separated from 
the others Gen. xlii. 18 ; Isa. viii. 9). With Eph. iv. 26 (p. 312) those passages have 
no analogy, otherwise the words of Paul must mean: if ye are angry, yet do not sin, 
or even: if ye would not sin, then be angry. It is therefore surprising that, notwith- 
standing this, Zyro (Stud. u. Krit. 1841. 8 Heft 8.685) has had recourse again to this 
alleged Hebraism. : 





812 § 43, THE IMPERATIVE. 


krit. Gramm. 653. But in Jno. vii. the expression is more forcible 
than καὶ ὄψει (Lucian. indoct. 29) would have been. The result 
of the search is so certain, that the exhortation to search is at the 
same time an exhortation to see. We find the regular construction 

$28 in Luke x. 28. In the passage from Eph. Paul’s meaning is un- 
questionably this: we should not let anger lead us into sin, ef. 
vs. 27 (sce Bengel and BCrus. in loc.) ; vs. 81 cannot be urged 
against this. It is only the grammatical acceptation of the expres- 
sion that is doubtful. It is either logically a single proposition 
ὀργιζόμενοι μὴ ἁμαρτ. divided into two grammatically, or ὀργίζεσθε 
must be taken permissively (cf. the similar passage Jer.x.24). For, 
the assertion (Mey.) that of two closely connected Imperatives the 

293 one cannot denote a permission and the other a command, is incor- 

the. rect; we may say with perfect propriety: Well, then, go (1 give 
you leave), but do not stay out above an hour. 

1 Tim. vi. 12 ἀγωνίζου τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα τῆς πίστεως, ἐπιλαβοῦ τῆς αἰωνίου 
ζωῆς (where the asyndeton is not without special force) must be rendered 
simply: fight the good fight of faith, lay hold of (in and by that fight) 
eternal life; cf. Mark iv. 39, see Fr. Ἔπιλαμβ. τῆς ζωῆς is not here ex- 
hibited (though it might have been) as the result, but as the very essence, 
of the contest; and ἐπιλαμβ. does not signify attain, receive. In 1 Cor. 
xv. 34 ἐκνήψατε δικαίως καὶ μὴ dpapravere are obviously two exhortations, 
one of which (Aor.) is to be carried into effect at once, while the other 
(Pres.) requires continuous effort. 

Constructions like Jno. ii. 19 λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον, καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις 
ἐγερῶ αὑτόν, Jas. iv. 7 ἀντίστητε τῷ διαβόλῳ, καὶ φεύξεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν (vs. 8), 
Eph. ν. 14 (Sept.) ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὃ Χριστός, may 
be resolved like two Imperatives connected by καί: ¢f ye resist the devil, 
he will, ete. But this, grammatically, requires no remark, as the Impera- 
tive has here its ordinary import (hortatory), and the structure of these 
sentences can, indeed must (as incomparably fnore forceful), be retained in 
the translation also. Cf. Lucian. indoct. 29 τοὺς κουρέας τούτους ἐπίσκεψαι 
καὶ ὄψει, dial. ἃ. 2,2 εὔρυθμα βαῖνε καὶ ὄψει, Plato, Theaet. 149 b.; rep. 
5, 407 ο.; see Fr. Mt. as above. Even recent expositors quite erro- 
neously take the Imperative in Jno. ii. 19; xx. 22 for the Fut., supporting 
their view by a reference to the Heb. in such passages as Gen. xx. 7; 
xlv. 18 (Glass. Philol. sacr. I. 286). Inasmuch as every command extends 
into future time, the Fut. tense, as a general expression of futurity, may 
be used for the Imperative (see no. 5); but the special form (the Impera- 
tive) cannot, in turn, be employed for the more general (Fut.). Such 

280 a substitution would occasion a confusion of tongues, and the observation 
ih ed. above alluded to, like so many others, is the offspring of the closet, not of 
attention to the phaenomena of living speech. Olshausen has correctly 





; 
: 


ee me 


Oe αν στοὰ, 


§ 43, THE IMPEXATIVE. 813 


opposed Tholuck (and Kiihnél) on Jno. xx. 22, and Tholuck has rectified 329 
his error. In Luke xxi. 19 the Fut. is the better reading; see Meyer. 


8. In the N.T. the distinction between the Aorist Imperative 
and Present Imperative is in general maintained (Hm. emend. rat. 

Ρ. 219 and Vig. 748, cf. H. Schinid de imperativi temporib. in ling. 
graec. Viteb. 1833, 4to. and especially Bmln. 169 ff., and in reference 
to the latter, Moller in Schneidewin Philologus VI. 115 ff.). For 

a. The Aorist Imperat. (cf. § 40 note 2.) denotes an action that 
is either transient and instantaneous (Ast, Plat. polit. p. 518; Schaef. 
Demosth. IV. 488), or to be undertaken but once; as, Mark i. 44 
σεαυτὸν δεῖξον τῷ ἱερεῖ, iii. 5 ἔκτεινον τὴν χεῖρά σου, vi. 11 ἐκτινάξατε 
τὸν χοῦν, Jno. ii. 7 γεμίσατε τὰς ὑδρίας ὕδατος etc., xi. 44 λύσατε 
αὐτὸν (Adfap.) x. ἄφετε αὐτὸν ὑπάγειν, 1 Cor. ν. 18 ἐξάρατε τὸν 904 
πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν, Acts xxiii. 23 ἑτοιμάσατε στρατιώτας διακο- ith ol. 
σίους forthwith make ready to march. Besides these, see Mark 
ix. 22,43; x. 21; xiii. 28; xiv. 15,44; xv. 30; Luke xx. 24; 
Jno. ii. 8; iv. 835; vi. 10; xi. 893; xiii. 29; xviii. 11; xxi. 6; Acts 
iii. 4; vii. 33; ix. 11; xvi. 9; xxi. 39; xxii. 13; 1 Cor. xvi. 1; 
Eph. vi. 13, 17; Col. iii. 5; Tit. iii. 13; Philem. 17; Jas. iii. 13 ; 
iv. 8,9; 1 Pet. iv. 1; 2 Pet. i.5,10. When something to be 
carried into effect at once is expressed, sometimes νῦν or νυνί is 
added to the Aorist Imperat.; as, Acts x.5; xxiii. 15; 2 Cor. 
viii.11. The Aorist Imperat. is used also when δή strengthens the 
injunction, as in Acts xiii. 2; 1 Cor. vi. 20 (Judith v. 3; vii. 9; 
Bar. iii. 4; Xen. C. 1, 3,9; Soph. El. 524 ; Klotz, Devar. 395). 

b. The Present Imperat. denotes an action already begun and 
to be continued (Poppo, Thue. III. IT. 742), or one that is per- 
manent and frequently recurring. Hence it is commonly employed 
in the measured and dispassionate language of laws and moral 
precepts, e.g. Rom. xi. 20 μὴ ὑψηλοφρόνει (as thou now art), xii. 20 
ἐὰν πεινᾷ ὁ ἐχθρός cov, Ψ ὁ μεζε αὐτόν (constantly in such case), 
xiii. 3 θέλεις μὴ φοβεῖσθαι τὴν ἐξουσίαν ; τὸ ἀγαθὸν ποίει, Jas. ii. 12 
οὕτω λαλεῖτε καὶ οὕτω ποιεῖτε, ὡς διὰ νόμου ἐλευθερίας etc., 1 Tim. 
iv. Τ τοὺς βεβήλους καὶ γραώδεις μύθους παραιτοῦ, cf. Jas. iv. 11; 

v. 12; 1,Tim. iv. 11,18; v. 7, 19; vi. 11; 2 Tim. ii. 1, 8, 14; Tit. — 
i. 13; ili. 1; 1 Cor. ix. 24; x. 14, 25; xvi. 18; Phil. ii. 12; iv. 8, 

9; Eph. ii. 11; iv. 25, 26, 28; vi. 4; Jno. i. 44; xxi. 16; Mark 
viii. 15; ix. 7,39; xiii. 11; xiv. 38. Hence in ordinary discourse 

the Present Imperat. conveys more softness and reserve of expres- 
sion, and frequently denotes merely advice (Moller as above, 123 f.). 330 


Accordingly the Present and the Aorist Imperat. are sometimes 
40 


814 §48, THE IMPERATIVE. 


used together, to denote respectively the distinctions above specified ; 

as, Jno. ii. 16 ἄρατε ταῦτα ἐντεῦθεν, μὴ ποιεῖτε τὸν οἶκον τοῦ 

πατρός μου οἶκον ἐμπορίου, 1 Cor. xv. 84 ἐκνήψατε δικαίως 

καὶ μὴ μαρτάνετε, Acts xii. 8 περιβαλοῦ τὸ ἱμάτιόν σου κ. 

981 ἀκολοὔῦθει μου, Rom. vi. 18 μηδὲ παριστάνετε τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν 

bih οἱ, ὅπλα ἀδικίας τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ἀλλὰ παραστήσατε ἑαυτοὺς τῷ θεῷ ὡς ἐκ 

νεκρῶν ζῶντας, Mark ii. 9; Jno. ν. 8, 11; ἢ. 8 ; cf. Plato, rep. 9, 572 d. 

θὲς τοίνυν πάλιν... νέον υἱὸν ἐν τοῖς τούτου ad ἤθεσι τεθραμμένον. 

Τίθημι. TiO es τοίνυν καὶ τὰ αὐτὰ ἐκεῖνα περὶ αὐτὸν γιγνόμενα (Mtth. 

1128), Xen. C.4, 5,41; Demosth. Aphob. 2, p, 557 c. and 588 a. ; 
Eurip. Hippol. 475 sq. and Heracl. 635. 

4. Occasionally this distinction may seem to be disregarded (1 

Pet. ii. 17), and the Aorist Imp. in particular appear to be employed 

where the Present Imp. would have been strictly required (Bhdy. 

393). It must be remembered, however, that in many cases it 

depends on the writer whether or not he will represent the action 

as occurring in a point of time and momentary, or as only com- 

mencing, or likewise continuing. Neither must it be overlooked 

that the Aorist Imp. is in general more forcible and stringent than 

the Present Imp. (see no. 8), and the strengthening of discourse 

295 is mainly a subjective matter ; cf. Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 235.4 

Τὰ οἱ. Ty accordance with these principles we must judge of the following 

passages: μείνατε ἐν ἐμοί Jno. xv. 4 etc. (also μένετε Luke ix, 4; 

1 Jno. ii, 28, μένε 2 Tim. iii. 14, μενέτω 1 Cor. vii. 24 etc.), 1 Jno. 

v. 21 φυλάξατε ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων (similarly 1 Tim. vi. 20; 

2 Tim. i. 14., on the other hand 2 Pet. iii. 17 ; 2 Tim. iv. 15), Heb. 

iii. 1 κατανοήσατε τὸν ἀπόστολον Kal ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν, 

Mark xvi. 15 πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἅπαντα κηρύξατε τὸ 

εὐαγγέλιον, Jno. xiv. 15 τὰς ἐντολὰς τὰς ἐμὰς τηρήσατε, Jas. Vv. T 

μακροθυμήσατε ἕως τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου, cf. Matt. xxviii. 19; 

2Tim. 1,.8;,. «3: iv.2; 1 Pet.i. 18; 11.2; v.2. The Aorist Imp. 

will be found quite suitable in all these passages. In Rom. xv. — 

11 (Sept.) J no. vii. 24 the Present Imp. and the Aorist Imp. even 

of the same verb are thus connected together. In many passages 

331 the reading varies e.g. Acts xvi. 15; Rom. xvi. 17; as also in the 

Codd. of Greek authors these two forms are often interchanged, 


1 In opposition to Schaef. Demosth. III. 185 he remarks: tenuissimum discrimen esse 
apparet, ut saepenumero pro lubitu aut affectu loquentis variari oratio possit. Nam 
quid mirum, qui modo lenius iusserat: σκοπεῖτε (Demosth. Lept. 483), eundem statim 
cum majore quadam yi et quasi intentius flagitantem addere: λογίσασθε. Et plerumque, 
si non semper, apud pedestres quidem scriptores, in tali diversorum temporum con- 
junctione praes. imperativus antecedit, sequitur aoristus. 





§43, THE IMPERATIVE. 315 


Elmsley, Eurip. Med.-99, 222, especially where they differ only in 
a single letter. Sometimes also one of these two Imperatives has 
become obsolete, —thus λάβε is constantly employed, not λάμβανε; : 
or one of the forms predominates, as in the N. T. pepe over ἔνεγκε. 
See Bmln. 172. — 


Respecting the Imperat. (Pres.) after μή, see § 56,1, p. 501 sq. 

The Perf. Imp. is used when an action, complete in itself, is represented 
as to continue in its effects, as in Mark iv. 39 in Christ’s address to the 
troubled sea: πεφίμωσο be (and remain) still! Cf. also ἔῤῥωσο, ἔῤῥωσθε 289 
Acts xxiii. 80; xv. 29. See Hm. emend. rat. p. 218; Mtth. 1126 ἢ ; tied 
Bmln. 174. Cf. Xen. M. 4, 2,19; Thuc. 1,71; Plato, Euthyd. 278 ἃ. 
and rep. 8, 553 a. 


5. The Imperative may also be superseded by other forms of ex- 
pression : 

a. By the phrase—originally elliptical — (my command is, or 
see) that thou do not tarry. We find ὅπως ἐπέξει τῷ μιαρῷ Dem. 
Mid. 414 ¢. (ὅπως with Fut. Indic. Mdv. 126), Eurip. Cycl. 595 ; 
Aristoph. nub. 823, (less frequently with the Subjunctive, Xen. 

C. 1, 3,18; Lucian. dial. ἃ. 20,2). In the N. T. (the weakened 

§ 44,8) ἵνα is thus used with the Subjunctive in Mark v. 23 ἵνα 
ἐλθὼν ἐπιθῆς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῇ, also in 2 Cor. viii. 7 (but not in 1 Cor. 

v. 2; 1 Tim. i. 8); and in the 3d Pers. in Eph. v 33 ἡ γυνὴ ἵνα 
φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα (an Imperative precedes). In the Greek poets, 
however, ἵνα occurs in the same connection (Soph. Oed. C. 155), 
and also in later prose ; as, Epict. 23 ἂν πτωχὸν ὑποκρίνεσθαί σε 296 
θελῃ (ὁ διδάσκαλος, ἵνα καὶ τοῦτον εὐφυῶς ὑποκρίνῃ, Arrian. Epict. Th ed 
4, 1, 41 ; and in the Byzantines even with the Ind. Pres., Malal. 

13 p. 334,16 p. 404. In Latin ef. Cie. fam. 14, 20: ibi ut sint 
omnia parata. 

b. By a negative question with the Future (Hm. Vig. 740; Rost 
678): wilt thou not come immediately? Aristoph. nub. 1296 οὐκ 
ἀποδιώξεις σεαυτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας ; Ken. Cyr. 2, 8,22. Cf. Acts 
xiii. 10 od παύσῃ διαστρέφων τὰς ὁδοὺς κυρίου ; 4 Macc. ν. 10 οὐκ 
ἐξυπνώσεις ; This construction, however, is for the most part more 
forcible than the Imperative. 

c. In categorical sentences by the Future (especially in the 
negative form): thow shalt not touch it, Matt. vi..5 οὐκ ἔσῃ ὡς 
ὑποκριταί, v. 48 (Lev. xi. 44). In Greek authors this mode of 
expression passes as milder than the Imperative, Mtth. 1122; Bhdy. 
378; Sintenis, Plut. Themist. 175 sqq.; Stallb. Plato, rep. II. 295 ; 
Weber, Demosth. p. 369 sq.; (as to the Latin, see Ramsh. 8. 421) 332 


816° § 43. THE IMPERATIVE. 


But in Hebrew it has established itself in the emphatic diction of 
legislation (Ewald, krit. Gr. 581); hence in quotations from the 
Old T.: Matt. v. 21, 27, 33 οὐ φονεύσεις, οὐ μοιχεύσεις, Luke iv. 12 ; 
Acts xxiii. 5; Rom. vii. 7; xiii. 9; 1 Cor. ix. 9 (Heb. xii. 20 
Sept.). Only the fifth commandment τίμα τὸν πατέρα ete. (from 
Sept.) Matt. xv. 4; xix. 19; Eph. vi. 2, etc. is expressed in the 
Imperat. In Rom. vi. 14 the Fut. expresses simple expectation. 
This form of expression may be in itself either stern or mild ;— 
depending on the tone with which it is uttered. 

d. By the Infinitive: to proceed! This, not to mention antique 
and epic diction, occurs in Greek prose, and not only when a com- 
mand is uttered with excitement or imperious brevity (Hm. Soph. 
Oed. R. 1057; Schaef. Demosth. III. 530; Poppo, Thue. I. I. 146; 
Bhdy. 588),! but also in requests, wishes, and prayers (Bremi, 
Dem. 230; Stallb. Plat. rep. 1. 388; Fr. Rom. III. 86; Mdv.155. 
Compare the’ ancient form of salutation χαίρειν Acts xv. 23; Jas. 

283 1.1). Expositors have often been over-ready to discover this usage 

δὲ αἱ i the N.T. (Georgi, Hierocr. I. 1. 58); altogether incorrectly in 
1 Thess. iii. 11; 2 Thess. ii. 17; iii. 5, where as the accent shows 
Imperatives occur. In other passages the change of construction, 
in sentences of some length, has been overlooked: in Luke ix. 3 
we find μήτε ῥάβδον ... ἔχειν, as if μηδὲν αἴρειν had been employed 
in the preceding part of the sentence; both constructions might 
have followed εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, and the writer certainly thought of 
ἔχειν as.an Infinitive depending on εἶπεν. In the parallel passage 
Mark vi. 8 f. we find another change of structure. Cf. Arrian. Al. 
4, 20, 5 od viv φύλαξον τὴν ἀρχήν" εἰ δὲ... σὺ S€... παραδοῦναι. 
Similarly Rom. xii. 15, see § 63. In other passages also the regu- 
lar grammatical connection has been misunderstood: in Rev. x. 9 
δοῦναι undoubtedly must be joined with λέγων ; in Col. iv. 6 εἰδέναι 

297 is an Inf. elucidating the preceding predicates of λόγος. Only in 

Thel. Phil. iii. 16 πλὴν ... τῷ αὐτῷ στοιχεῖν is the Inf. most easily taken 
for the Imperat. ; it points out here with peculiar effect the un- 
changing law of progress for the Christian life. Cf. Stallb. ad Plat. 
Gorg. 447 b. 


To the imperative ἵνα under a. Gieseler in Rosenm. Repert. II. 145 
refers the use of a iva in John etc., as in Jno. i. 8 οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς GAN 
iva μαρτυρήσῃ but he was to bear witness; ix. 8; xiii. 18. But the 

833 construction can only have this meaning when iva signifies in order that ; 


1 Thus in laws and moral rules in Hesiod. opp. et dd., in Theognis, in Hippocrates, 
in Mare. Anton. See Gayler, partic. negantt. p. 80 sq. 


a 


§ 44, THE INFINITIVE. 317 


and then an ellipsis, at least of a general kind, as γέγονε todro,’ underlies 
the usage, though John himself in consequence of frequent use regarded it 
in particular passages as nothing more than but in order that, cf. Fr. Mt. 
840 sq. An expositor, on the contrary, if he wishes to do his duty, can and 
must in every case give naturally the special ellipsis from the context; as, 
Jno. i. 8 he himself was not the light of the world, but he came (ἦλθεν vs. 7) 
that he might bear witness ; ix. 8 neither hath this man sinned nor his 
parents, but he was born blind that ... might be made manifest (cf. 1 Jno. 
ii. 19). In xiii. 18 there is probably an aposiopesis, which may be easily 
explained psychologically: I speak not of you all, I know those whom I 
have chosen, but (1 have made this choice) that ... might be fulfilled ete. ; 
see BCrus. (if we do not prefer to suppose that Jesus, instead of giving 
utterance to the painful fact in his own language, continues in the words 
of the Psalmist, cf. 1 Cor. ii. 9). In Jno. xv. 25 ἐμίσησάν pe δωρεάν in the 
quotation shows that μεμισήκασιν must be repeated before iva. In Mark 
xiv. 49 the coming forth of the Jews against Jesus, in the manner de- 
scribed in ys. 48, is understood as predicted. Lastly, in Rev. xiv. 13 from 
ἀποθνήσκοντες the word ἀποθνήσκουσι may be supplied before iva ete. 

Note. In the N. T. text it is occasionally doubtful, whether a verbal 
form that answers equally for the Imperat. and (the 2d person of) the 284 
Indic. is to be taken for the former or the latter; e.g. Heb. xii. 17 tore, gh ed 
ὅτι kal μετέπειτα θέλων κληρονομῆσαι τὴν εὐλογίαν ἀπεδοκιμάσθη, [xiii. 23] 
1 Cor. vi. 4 βιωτικὰ μὲν οὖν κριτήρια ἐὰν ἔχητε, τοὺς ἐξουθενημένους ἐν τῇ 
ἐκκλησίᾳ, τούτους καθίζετε, 1. 26 ; xi. 26; Rom. xiii. 6; Eph. ii. 22 ; 
Phil. ii. 15, 22; Jno. xiv. 1; 1 Pet. 1.6; ii. 5. In all such cases the 
decision must depend on the context; and the question belongs not to 
Grammar but to Hermeneutics. 


844. THE INFINITIVE? 298 
Tth ed, 


1. The Infinitive, inasmuch as it expresses the idea of the verb 
purely and simply i.e. without reference to a subject, is least 
qualified of all the verbal forms to figure as a part of speech in a 334 
grammatical sentence. It is so used, a. in expressing a concise, 
hurried command (ὃ 43, 5d.) ; or, Ὁ. when introduced adverbially ; 
or, ¢. subjoined absolutely. Under b. comes only the phrase ὡς 
ἔπος εἰπεῖν Heb, vii. 9 (Krii. 178). To c. may be referred (Krii. 
179) Phil. iv. 10 ἀνεθάλετε τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν as to your regard 


1 To say that there is nothing to be supplied (as de Wette does), is not satisfactory ; 
at any rate it must be shown how and by what means ἵνα assumes that import. 

2 K. E. A. Schmidt on the Infinitive. Prenzlau, 1823. 8vo. ; M. Schmidt on the Infin. 
Ratibor, 1826. 8vo.; Eichhoff on the Infin. Crefeld, 1833. 8vo. Cf. Mehlhorn in the 
allgem. Lit. Z. 1833. Ergzbl. nr. 110. 


318 § 44, THE INFINITIVE. 


for me, though another construction also is possible here. But an 
Inf. which is added to a clause as its complement Cinfinit. epexe- 
geticus), generally to express design (Rost 687), is related to the 
last use, or rather coincides with it essentially, Matt. ii. 2 ἤλθομεν 
προςκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ (in order) to worship him (after ἔρχομαι Matt. 
xi. 7; xx. 28; Heb. ix. 24; Rev. xxii. 12; Jno. iv. 15; Luke 
i. 17, and πέμπω or ἀποστέλλω Mark iii. 14; 1 Cor. i. 17; xvi. 3, 
and, besides, Acts v. 31; Rom. x. 7; 1 Cor. x. 7); 2 Cor. xi. 2 
ἡρμοσάμην ὑμᾶς ἑνὶ ἀνδρὶ παρθένον ἁγνὴν παραστῆσαι τῷ Χριστῷ, 
Οο].1. 22; 2 Cor. ix.5; χ. 18,16; Jno. xiii. 24 νεύει τούτῳ πυθέσθαι 
(ef. Diod. 8. 20, 69), Rev. xvi. 9 οὐ μετενόησαν δοῦναι αὐτῷ δόξαν, 
2 Pet. iii. 2 (1 Sam. xvi. 1) Phil. iv. 12. In other passages it 
denotes the result (as, in the early language, design and result 
were not yet distinguished, Bmln. 8. 339) Col. iv. 6 ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν... 
ἅλατι ἠρτυμένος ... εἰδέναι mas etc. seasoned with salt, to know 
(so that ye may know), Heb. v. 5; or the mode of carrying into 
effect, as in Acts xv. 10 τί πειράζετε τὸν θεὸν ἐπιθεῖναι ζυγὸν ἐπὶ τὸν 
τράχηλον τῶν μαθητῶν imponendo jugum, Heb. v. 5 (1 Pet. iv. 8). 
Lastly, in Eph. iii. 6 the Infin. clause gives the substance of the 
μυστήριον vs. 4; cf. also Eph. iv. 22. In Greek authors this lax 
use of the Inf. is carried much farther, Schaef. Soph. 11. 324 ; 
Jacob, Lucian. Tox. 116; Held, Plut. Aem. P. 185sq. The Inf. 
of design is particularly frequent (Soph. Oed. C.12; Thue. 1, 50; 
4,8; Her. 7, 208; Plut. Cim. 5; Arrian. Al. 1, 16,10; 4, 16, 4) 
985 Mtth. 1234; Krii. 186 (though the Greeks, after verbs of going 
bth el. or sending, still more frequently employ the Participle, cf. Acts 
viii. 27; xxiv. 11). 
Such relations are more distinctly denoted sometimes by ὥςτε before the 
Inf., as in Luke ix. 52; Matt. xxvii. 1. On the above passage in Matt. 
299 where the explanation of Fr. is very far-fetched cf. Strab. 6,324; Schaef. 
ith es ad Bos ellips. p. 784, and Soph. Oed. Col. p. 525; Mtth. 1232. In the 
Byzantine writers ὥςτε with the Inf. instead of the Inf. alone is peculiarly 
common, e.g. Malal. p. 385 ἐβουλεύσατο ὥςτε ἐκβληθῆναι τὴν πενθεράν, p. 484. 
Cf. also Heinichen, ind. ad Euseb. III. 545. A parallel to Luke, as above, 
occurs in Euseb. H. E. 3, 28, 3: εἰςελθεῖν ποτε ἐν βαλανείῳ ὥςτε λούσασθαι. 
835 This extended use of the particle in the later language it is better to rec- 
ognize in the N. T. also, than to consent to forced interpretations. ‘Qs 
before the Inf. occurs only in Acts xx. 24 οὐδενὸς λόγον ποιοῦμαι, οὐδὲ ἔχω 
τὴν ψυχήν pov τιμίαν ἐμαυτῷ, ὡς τελειῶσαι τὸν δρόμον μου μετὰ χαρᾶς in 
order to finish my course etc., see Bornem. Schol. p. 174 sq. 


Other forms of the Infin. epexeget. are more naturally annexed 


§ 44, THE INFINITIVE. eS 


to a proposition or a clause, and assume the form of a grammati- 
cally governed word, which they were considered to be in part by 
earlier grammarians:! a. Mark vii. 4 πολλὰ ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν 
(observanda acceperunt), Matt. xxvii. 34 ἔδωκαν αὐτῷ πιεῖν ὄξος, 
Eph. iii. 16 (Thue. 2, 27 ; 4, 86 ; Lucian. asin. 43; Diog. L. 2,51). 
b. 1 Cor. ix. 5 ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν γυναῖκα περιάγειν, ix. 4; Luke viii. 
8 ἁ ἔχων ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω, ii. 1; Acts xiv. 5; Eph. iii.8; Heb. 
xi. 15 καιρὸς ἀνακάμψαι, iv. 1 (Plato, Tim. 38 b.; Aesch. dial. 3, 2) 
Mtth. 1235. In this construction a subject even may be added to 
the Inf., as in Rom. xiii. 11; ef. Schoem. Plut. Cleom. 187. 

The Inf. is construed with Adjectives in 2 Tim. i. 12 δυνατὸς 
τὴν παραθήκην μου φυλάξαι (Thue. 1, 139.), Heb. xi. 6; vi. 10 οὐκ 
ἄδικος ὁ θεὸς ἐπιλαθέσθαι etc., 1 Pet. iv. 3; 1 Cor. vii. 39; Mark 
i. 7; 2 Cor. iii. 5; Luke xv. 19; Acts xiii. 25 ; Heb. v.11; 2 Tim. 

ii. 2; Luke xxii. 33. Cf. Ast, Plat. legg. p. 117; Stallb. Plat. 
Euthyd. 204; Weber, Demosth. 261 ; Bhdy. 361. 

2. But the Inf. may also enter into the construction of a sentence 
as an integral part of it; and then its nature as a noun more or less 
clearly appears. In such cases it is used sometimes as the subject 
and sometimes as the object. It serves as subject (Mtth. 1259) in 
sentences such as Matt. xii. 10 εἰ ἔξεστι τοῖς σάββασι θεραπεύειν 
is tt lawful to heal on the Sabbath day (is healing ete. lawful) ? 
xv. 26 οὐκ ἔστι καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων, 1 Thess. iv. 3 288 
τοῦτό ἐστι θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ ... ἀπέχεσθαι... ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας (Where ‘th οἰ. 
ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν precedes, which also might have been expressed by 
an Inf.), Acts xx. 16 ὅπως μὴ γένηται αὐτῷ χρονοτριβῆσαι (Weber, 336 
Dem. 213), Matt. xix. 10; Eph. v.12; Phil. i. 7; Gal. vi. 14; Jas. 300 
i. 27; Rom. xiii. 5 ; 1 Cor. xi. 20 ; Heb. vi. 6 ; ix. 27; 1 Pet. ii. 15. ™ οἱ 
If in such cases the Infin. itself has a subject, whether a substantive, 
adjective, or participle, this is usually connected grammatically 
with the Inf. and put in the Accusative ; as, Matt. xvii. 4 καλόν 
ἐστιν ἡμᾶς ὧδε εἶναι, xix. 24; Jno. xviii. 14; 1 Cor. xi. 13; 1 Pet. 

ii. 15 ; Acts xxv. 27 ; Luke ix. 33; xviii. 25. Cf. Matthiae, Eurip. 
Med. p. 526; Schwarz, de soloec. discip. Ch. p. 88 sq. When the 
subject is subjoined to the leading clause (Phil. i. 7 δίκαιον ἐμοὶ 


1 Likewise by those who thought that in the example adduced under Ὁ. ἔχομεν 
ἐξουσίαν περιάγειν, A τοῦ is omitted before the Inf. (Haitinger in Act. Monac. III. 301) : 
ths is put when the Inf. is regarded definitely as a Gen. (noun); without τοῦ it is the 
Inf. epexeget. The two constructions are somewhat differently conceived, Mtth. 1235. 
So in Latin, Cic. Tuse. 1,41: tempus est abire (ef. Ramshorn S. 423), in other passages 
abeundi. See in general Stallb. Plat. Phil. p. 213 and Euthyphr. p. 107. (As in Luke 
i. 9 we find ἔλαχε τοῦ θυμιᾶσαι, so in Demosth. Neaer. 517 c. λαγχάνει βουλεύειν.) 


820 844. THE INFINITIVE. 


τοῦτο φρονεῖν etc.), the adjectives construed with the Infin. stand 
either in the Acc. (Matt. xviii. 8 καλόν σοί ἐστιν εἰςελθεῖν εἰς τὴν 
ζωὴν ~wrov ἢ κυλλόν), or in the case of the subject, according 
to an attraction common in Greek authors; as, 2 Pet.ii.21 κρεῖττον 
ἣν αὐτοῖς, μὴ ἐπεγνωκέναι τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἢ ἐπιγνοῦσιν 
ἐπιστρέψαι, Acts xv. 25 (var.) οἵ. Thue. 2, 87; Demosth. funebr. 
168 ἃ., 156a.; Xen. Hier. 10,2; Bhdy. 359 ; Krii. 180 (Zumpt 
505). In Heb. ii. 10 both constructions are united: ἔπρεπεν 
αὐτῷ... ἀγαγόντα... τέλειῶσαν cf. Mark ix: 47 ; Matt. xviii. 8 
(Plut. Coriol. 14). 


It is further to be remarked that 
a. The Inf. in this case sometimes has the Article: viz. where it serves 
directly as a verbal noun, which takes place not only in sentences such as 
Rom. vii. 18 τὸ θέλειν παράκειταί μοι, τὸ δὲ κατεργάζεσθαι τὸ καλὸν οὔ, 2 Cor. 
vii. 11 αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ κατὰ θεὸν λυπηθῆναι πόσην κατειργάσατο ὑμῖν σπουδήν, 
Phil. i. 21, where the finite verb with its adjuncts forms a complete predi- 
cate; but also in the impersonal phrases καλόν, αἰσχρόν ἐστι etc. (Rost 681), 
if special force is intended to be Εὐἶθι to the notion expressed hy the Inf. 
e.g. 1 Cor. vii. 26 καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ οὕτως εἶναι, Gal. iv. 18 καλὸν τὸ ζηλοῦσθαι 
ἐν καλῷ πάντοτε, Rom. xiv. 21; 1 Cor. xi. 6. In the former case the 
Article could hardly be omitted; but in the latter καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ οὕτως 
εἶναι it is good for a man so to be (cf. 1 Cor. vii. 1; xiv. 35) would have 
been less forcible in expression.' Phil. i. 29 may also be reckoned in the 
second class; in 1 Thess. iv. 6 one such Inf. with the Article is followed 
by another without it (cf. Plat. Gorg. 467 d.; Xen. Cyr. 7, 5, 76); but in 
Rom. iv. 13 the Inf. τὸ κληρονόμον εἶναι appears as a species of apposition 
to ἡ ἐπαγγελία. In Greek authors compare with the above, Plat. Phaed. 
62 d.; Gorg. 475 b.; Xen. M. 1, 2,1; Diod. S. 1, 93. 
b. Instead of the Inf., especially when its subject is to be expressed with 
special force, a complete clause also is used with ἐάν, εἰ, ἵνα (according to 
the import) ; as, Mark xiv. 21 καλὸν ἦν αὐτῷ, εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη, 1 Cor. vii. 8 
καλὸν αὐτοῖς ἐστιν, ἐὰν μείνωσιν ὡς κἀγώ, INO. xvi. 7 συμφέρει ὑμῖν, ἵνα ἐγὼ 
801 ἀπέλθω. «Respecting ἵνα, see below, no. 8. This is in part a general 
ith el. peculiarity of the (later) popular language, which prefers circumstantiality ; 
287 in part it is to be referred to the Hellenistic tinge of the N.T. diction. 
bth ed. yo something similar occurs in Greek authors, as in Isocr. Nicocl. p. 40, 46. 
337 Likewise, when the Inf. is joined with ἐστί in the sense of ¢¢ ts lawful, 
or it is possible etc. to ..., the Inf. is itself the subject; as, Heb. ix. 5 (Ast, 
lexic. Plat. I. 622 a.). But 1 Cor. xi. 20 may (in opposition to Wahl and 


1A difference in meaning between an Inf. with the Art. and without it is certainly 
not to be assumed. In German, too, none such exists between das Beten ist segensreich 
and beten ist segensreich. Yet the Inf. becomes more forcible when used as a substantive 
with the Article. 


§ 44, THE INFINITIVE. 321 


Mey.) be further rendered: when ye come together, it is (means) not to eat 
the Lord’s Supper. Τοῦτο in resumption of the Gen. abs. is not required. 


3. The Inf. denotes the object (predicate) in all cases when it 
is requisite to complete the meaning of a verb, not only after 
θέλειν, δύνασθαι, τολμᾶν, ἐπιχειρεῖν, σπουδάζειν, Cyretv,' etc., but 
also after verbs of believing, hoping (1 hope to come, etc.), saying, 
asserting. The regular usage need not be proved from the N. T., 
and therefore we have merely to remark, 

a. If, in such case, the Inf. has its own subject different from 
that of the principal verb, such subject with all its attributives is 
put in the accusative (Acc. with Infin.); as, 1 Tim. ii. 8 βούλομαι 
προςεύχεσθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας. 2 Cor. xiii. 7; Heb. vi. 11 ἐπιθυμοῦμεν 
ἕκαστον ὑμῶν τὴν αὐτὴν ἐνδείκνυσθαι σπουδὴν etc., 2 Pet. i. 15; 

1 Cor. vii. 10; Acts xiv. 19 νομίσαντες αὐτὸν τεθνάναι, 2 Cor. xi. 16 

μή tis με δόξη ἄφρονα εἶναι,2 Rom. xv. 5 6 θεὸς δῴη ὑμῖν τὸ αὐτὸ 
φρονεῖν, 2 Tim. i. 18, Yet, more frequently we find a‘complete 
clause with iva after verbs of entreating, commanding, etc. (see 

no. 8), with ὅτι after verbs of saying, believing (Matt. xx. 10; 
Acts xix. 26; xxi. 29; Rom. iv. 9; viii. 18; Gal. v. 10), and 
always in the N. T. after ἐλπίζω. If, on the other hand, the Inf. 
and the principal verb have one and the same subject, the quali- 
fying words, if such there be, are subjoined in the Nominative; as, 
Rom. xv. 24 ἐλπίζω διαπορευόμενος θεάσασθαι ὑμᾶς, 2 Cor. x. 2 
δέομαι τὸ μὴ παρὼν θαῤῥῆσαι (Philostr. Apoll. 2, 23), Rom. i. 22; 
Phil. iv. 11; 2 Pet. iii.14; Jude 3 (Luke i. 9 3).3 which is a kind 

of attraction; οἵ. Kriiger, gramm. Untersuch. III. 328 ff The 
subject itself is then not repeated ; as, Jas. ii. 14; 1 Cor. vii. 36. 338 
Even in this construction, however, the Accusative (with Inf.) 
may be used, yet only when the subject is repeated in the form of 399 
a pronoun (Hm. Vig. 748), though this does not often occur; as, Το, 
Rom. ii. 19 πέποιθας σεαυτὸν ὁδηγὸν εἶναι τυφλῶν, Phil. iii. 13 ἐγὼ 
ἐμαυτὸν ov λογίζομαι κατεϊχηφέναι, Luke xx. 20 ὑποκρινομένους, 
ἑαυτοὺς δικαίους εἶναι, Acts xxvi. 2; Rev. ii. 2,9, perhaps also Eph. 288 —— 
iv. 22 (where, as appears to me, ἀποθέσθαι ὑμᾶς depends on ἐδιδά- Sth od. 


1 In opposition to Bornem. Schol. p. 40 see Fr. Rom. II. 376; ef. Blume, Lyeurg. p 151. 

2 If the governed substantive to which the Inf. refers be in the Dative, the noun 
accompanying the Infin. may also be in the Dative, as in Acts xxvii. 3... τῷ Παύλῳ 
χρησάμενος ἐπέτρεψεν πρὸς τοὺς φίλους πορευθέντι ἐπιμελείας τυχεῖν, unless the Dative 
here is a correction ; see Bornem. On the other hand, we find in Luke i. 74 τοῦ δοῦναι 
ἡμῖν ἀφόβως ἐκ χειρὸς ἐχθρῶν ῥυσθέντα- λατρεύειν αὐτῷ ete. 

ὃ So also in 1 Tim. i. 3 πορευόμενος belongs to παρεκάλεσα. If connected with 
mposueivat it would necessarily, in such proximity, appear in the Accusative. 

41 


822 8 44, THE INFINITIVE. 


xOnre) cf. Her. 2,2; Ken. C. 5,1, 21 νομίζοιμι yap ἑαυτὸν ἐοικέναι 
etc., 1, 4, 4 (where see Poppo); Anab. 7, 1, 30; Mem. 2, 6, 35; 
Diod. 8.1, 50; Exc. Vat. p. 57; Philostr. Apoll. 1, 12; see Kriiger 
as above, 5. 890. Yet in the former passages this construction 
was preferred probably for the sake of antithesis (see Plat. symp. 
c. ὃ, and Stallb. in loc., cf. Kriiger as above, 5. 386 f.) or of per- 
spicuity: I deem not that I myself have already etc. For the same 
reason, also, ὑμᾶς, in Eph. as above, appears to be employed, since 
in vs. 21 another subject, Jesus, has intervened. Later writers, 
however, use this construction even when no antithesis is intended, 
ef. Heinichen, Euseb. H. E. I. 118. 

b. After verbs of saying, (asserting), believing, the Inf: is some- 
times used when the assertion etc. refers not to something that 
really is, but to something that should be (such verbs, containing 
rather the notion of advice, claim, or command; see also Elmsley, 
Soph. Oed. T. p. 80; Mtth. 1230); as, Acts xxi. 21 λέγων, μὴ 
mepitéuvew αὐτοὺς τὰ τέκνα he suid they ought not to circumcise their 
children (he commanded them not to circumcise etc.) xv. 24? 
Tit. ii. 2; Acts xxi. 4 τῷ Παύλῳ ἔλεγον μὴ ἀναβαίνειν εἰς ‘“Iepoa. 
they said to Paul that he should not go up (advised him not to go) 
etc. cf. Eurip. Troad. 724. In all these cases if the statement 
were resolved into direct address the Imperative would be used : 
μὴ περιτέμνετε τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν. Compare on this Inf. (which even 
recent writers still explain by supposing the omission of δεῖν, see 
in opposition Hm. Vig. 745) Lob. Phryn. p.753sqq.; Bttm. Demosth. 
Mid. p. 131; Engelhardt, Plat. Lach. p. 81; Jen. Lit. Zeit. 1816. 
No. 231; Bhdy. 871. Too many passages, however, of the N. T. 
have been referred to this head. Rom. xiv. 2 ὃς μὲν πιστεύει φαγεῖν 
πάντα means: one man has confidence to eat, and the may is already 
implied in πιστεύειν. In xv. 9 δοξάσαι denotes, not what the 
Gentiles should do, but what they actually do; see Fr. In ii. 21 ἢ 
and Eph. iv. 22 f. (see above) the verbs to make known and to be 
instructed, on which the Infinitives depend, inherently denote as 
well what is (and must be believed) as what ought to be (should 
be done); and, in the same way, we can say: they preached to 

339 them not to steal; ye have been taught to lay aside. In Acts x. 22 
χρηματίζεσθαι occurs, which is almost uniformly employed to denote 
the direction of an oracle, a divine injunction. Finally, when 
after verbs of beseeching the Inf. must be rendered by may, such 

303 import is comprehended in the meaning of those verbs in the 

ith el. context in question, as in 2 Cor. x. 2 δέομαι τὸ μὴ παρὼν θαῤῥῆσαι 


8 44, THE INFINITIVE. 323 


τῇ πεποιθήσει, as if, I beseech you in reference to my not being 
bold, that is, to see that I be not bold.t 

6. The Article is put before the Inf. when it is the object, to 
make it a substantive, and thus give it greater prominence (Rost 289 
682) Rom. xiii. 8; xiv. 13 (Luke vii. 21 var.) ; 1 Cor. iv. 6 ; 2 Cor. δ 
ii. 1; viii. 10; Phil. iv. 10; cf. above, 1 (Hm. Soph. Aj. 114) ; 
especially at the beginning of the sentence (Thue. 2,53; Xenoph. 
M. 4, 3,1), 1 Cor. xiv. 89 τὸ λαλεῖν γλώσσαις μὴ κωλύετε (cf. Soph. 
Phil. 1241 ὅς ce κωλύσει τὸ δρᾶν). In Phil. ii. 6 οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν 
ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, the Inf. with the Article is the im- 
mediate object of ἡγήσ., and ἁρπαγμ. is predicate, cf. Thuc. 2, 87 
οὐχὶ δικαίαν ἔχει τέκμαρσιν τὸ ἐκφοβῆναι, and Bhdy. 316. 

Especially deserving of attention is the use (in Luke peculiarly fre- 
quent) of the Inf. with the Acc. after ἐγένετο, as in Mark ii. 23 ἐγένετο 
παραπορεύεσθαι αὐτόν accidit, ut transiret, Acts xvi. 16 ἐγέν. παιδίσκην τινὰ 
e+. ἀπαντῆσαι ἡμῖν, xix. 1 éyév. ἸΤαῦλον διελθόντα... ἐλθεῖν εἰς "Edeccy, iv. 5 ; 
ix. 8, 32, 37, 43; xi. 26; xiv.1; xxi. 1,5; xxii.6; xxvii. 44; xxviii. 8, 
17; Luke iii. 21 ἢ ; vi. 1, 6; xvi. 22 ete.2 Here the Infinitive clause is 
to be considered as the (extended) subject of ἐγένετο, just as after συνέβη 
(see just below), and in Latin after aequum est, apertum est, etc. (Zumpt, 
Gr. 505): Jesus’ passing by came to pass, etc. The construction is good 
Greek, though the frequent use of éyévero with the Inf., instead of the 
historical tense of the particular verb, is primarily an imitation of the 
Hebrew “47. In Greek we find a grammatical parallel in συνέβη τὴν 
πόλιν ... εἶναι κυριεύουσαν Diod. S. 1, 50; 8, 22,39; Plat. legg. 1, 635a.; 
Demosth. Polycl. 709 c.; Dion. H. IV. 2089, and frequently, particularly 
in Polybius (also 2 Mace. iii. 2), which occurs also once in Acts xxi. 35. 840 
The germ of the former construction may be seen in Theogn. 689 πολλάκι 
«ον γίγνεται εὑρεῖν ἔργ᾽ ἀνδρῶν, with which Matt. xviii. 13 agrees most 
closely. It appears in its full form in Plat. Phaedr. 242b. τὸ δαιμόνιόν 
τε καὶ τὸ εἰωθὸς σημεῖόν μοι γίγνεσθαι ἐγένετο; and especially in later writers, 
e.g. Codin. p. 138 ἐγένετο τὸν βασιλέα ἀθυμεῖν, Epiphan. Monach. ed. 
Dressel p. 16 ἐγένετο αὐτοὺς ἀναβῆναι εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ. 

The use of the Acc. with the Inf., as has been already remarked, is 
elsewhere in the N.T. comparatively rare. A clause with ὅτι is more 


1Jn 2 Cor. ii. 7 ὥςτε... . χαρίσασθαι καὶ παρακαλέσαι the two Infinitives in the same 
way denote what should be, and not what actually takes place. Yet even here δεῖν is 
not to be supplied, but the clause with ἑκανόν extends its influence to these Infinitives : 
The reproach is sufficient, — that you may now, on the contrary, forgive him etc. 

2 The same construction is followed in Acts xxii. 17 ἐγένετό μοι ὑποστρέψαντι εἰς 
Ἱερουσαλὴμ... γενέσθαι με ἐν ἐκστάσει, where the Infin. might have been joined directly 
to μοι ὕποστ. (accidit mihi), and perhaps would have been joined to it had not the writer 
been led to depart from this construction by the intervention of the Gen. abs. καὶ mpos- 
εὐχομένου μου ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ. ; 


824 8 44, THE INFINITIVE. 


304 common, quite after the manner of the later (popular) language, which 

ith ed. resolves condensed constructions, and prefers the more circumstantial and 
perspicuous. Hence in Latin e.g. wt where the more ancient language 
employed the Acc. with the Inf.; hence, especially, the quod after verbs 
dicendi and sentiendi which in the period of declining Latin (particularly 
in the extra-Italian provinces) becomes more and more frequent. In Ger- 
man the concise construction, “ He said I had come too late,” is resolved 
in the speech of the people into “ He said that I,” etc. Moreover, it must 

290 not be overlooked that after verbs dicendi the N. T. likes to introduce 

ih ed. what is said in the oratio recta, according to the graphic idiom of Oriental 
tongues. 


4, The Inf. rendered an unmistakable substantive by means. 
of the Article is also employed in the oblique cases. When so 
used it appears in the N. T. most frequently (far more so than in 
Greek authors) in the Genitive. Sometimes, 

a. it depends on nouns or verbs which elsewhere also govern 
the Genitive: 1 Cor. ix. 6 οὐκ ἔχομεν. ἐξουσίαν τοῦ μὴ ἐργάζεσθαι; 
1 Pet. iv. 17 6 καιρὸς τοῦ ἄρξασθαι τὸ κρίμα etc., Acts xiv. 9 πίστιν 
ἔχει τοῦ σωθῆναι, XX. ὃ ἐγένετο γνώμη τοῦ ὑποστρέφειν, Luke xxiv. 
25 βραδεῖς τῇ καρδίᾳ τοῦ πιστεύειν, Acts xxiii. 15 ἕτοιμον τοῦ 
ἀνελεῖν (Sept. Ezek. xxi. 11; 1 Mace. v. 39) ; Luke i. 9 ἔλαχε τοῦ 
θυμιᾶσαι (1 Sam. xiv. 47); 2 Cor. i. 8 ὥςτε ἐξαπορηθῆναι ἡμᾶς καὶ 
τοῦ Sv, 1 Cor. xvi. 4 ἐὰν ἢ ἄξιον τοῦ κἀμὲ πορεύεσθαι if it be 
worthy of my going also. Cf. also 1 Cor. x. 13; 2 Cor. viii. 11; 
Luke xxii. 6; Phil. iii. 21; Rom. vii. 3; xv. 23; Heb. v. 12; 
Rey. ix. 10 (Sept. Gen. xix. 20; Ruth ii. 10; Neh. x. 29; Judith 

_ ix. 14, etc.). Sometimes the Codd. vary between the Inf. with τοῦ 
and without it, as in Rev. xiv. 15 (in other passages we find, in 
parallel phrases, sometimes the one and sometimes the other, Heb, 
vy. 12; 1 Thess. iv. 9). For passages. from Greek authors, see 
Georgi, vind. 325 sq.; Mtth. 1256. (In these, several. words fre- 
quently intervene between the Article and the Inf.; but this does 
not occur in the N. T., owing to the simplicity of its diction. See 
Demosth. funebr. 153 a., 154 ¢.; Aristoer. 431 a.) 


Under this head come also Luke i. 57 ἐπλήσθη ὃ χρόνος τοῦ τεκεῖν 

αὐτήν, ii. 21, cf. Sept. Gen. xxv. 24; xlvii. 29, as in writing Greek the 

841 author regarded the Gen. as depending immediately on χρόνος. In Hebrew 

the construction is somewhat different, the Inf. with > being used; see 
Ewald 621. 


Sometimes, b. it is construed with entire clauses, to express 
design (see Valcken. Eurip. Hippol. 48; Ast, Plat. legg. p. 56 ; 


§ 44, THE INFINITIVE. 325 


Schaef. Demosth. II. 161; V. 368; Ellendt, Arrian. Al. 1.338; Mtth. 
1256 f.), where the earlier philologists supplied ἕνεκα (cf. Dem. 
funebr. 156 b.) or χάριν, as Luke xxiv. 29 εἰφῆλθεν τοῦ μεῖναι σὺν 
αὐτοῖς, Matt. xxiv. 45 ὃν κατέστησεν ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκετείας αὐτοῦ 

τοῦ δοῦναι αὐτοῖς τὴν τροφήν, iii. 18 παραγίνεται ἐπὶ τὸν ᾿Ιορδάνην 
τοῦ βαπτισθῆναι, xiii. 3; Luke ii. 27; v. 7; xxi. 22; xxii. 31; 
Acts iii. 2; xxvi. 18; 1 Cor. x. 13; Heb. x. 7; Gal. iii. 10; with 305 
a negative in Acts xxi. 12 παρεκαλοῦμεν ... τοῦ μὴ ἀναβαίνειν αὐτὸν ith ed, 
eis ἹΙερουσαλήμ, Jas. v.17; Heb. xi. 5. This construction is espe- 
cially peculiar to Luke (and Paul). But in Greek prose, partic- 
ularly after the time of Demosthenes, parallel ‘instances occur ; 
and this use of the Genitive results so surely from the primary 
import of the case itself (Bhdy. 174 f.), that no one should venture 

to find in it either an ellipsis or a Hebraism. Cf. Xen. C. 1, 6, 40 

τοῦ δὲ μηδ᾽ ἐντεῦθεν διαφεύγειν, σκοποὺς τοῦ γιγνομένου καθίστης. 
Plat. Gorg. 457 6. φοβοῦμαι οὖν διελέγχειν σε, μή με ὑπολάβῃς οὐ 
πρὸς τὸ πρᾶγμα φιλονεικοῦντα λέγειν, τοῦ καταφανὲς γενέσθαι etc. 
Strabo 15,717; Demosth. Phorm. 603 b.; Isocr. Aegin. 952 ; Thue. 291. 
1, 23; 2,22; Heliod. 2, 8,88; 1, 24,46; Dion. H, IV. 2109 ; she. 
Arrian, Al. 2, 21,13; 3,25,4 and 28,12. An Inf. with, and 
another without τοῦ, are connected in the same principal clause 

in Luke ii. 22 f, If a subject is expressed in this construction it 

is put in the Acc. Luke v. T. 


In Phil. iii. 10 also this Inf. denotes design, where τοῦ γνῶναι is con- 
nected with vs. 8 and resumes the thought there expressed. (In the 
Sept. this Inf. oceurs on every page, cf. Gen. i. 14; xxiv. 21; xxxviii. 9; 
xliii. 17; Judg. v. 16; ix. 15,52; x. 1; xi. 12; xv.12; xvi. 5; xix. 3; 
xx. 4; Ruthi.1,7; ii. 15; iv.10; Neh. i. 6; 1 Sam. ix. 13,14; xv. 27; 
2 Sam. vi. 2; xix. 11; Jonahi. 3; Joel iii. 12; Judith xv.8; 1 Mace. 
iii. 20, 39, 52; v. 9, 20, 485 vi. 15, 26.) é 

Different from this, and more closely connected with the notion of the 
Genitive —hence to be referred to a. — is the use of the Inf. with τοῦ 
after verbs signifying to be distant from, to restrain or debar from, to 
prevent from ; for these verbs contain the inherent power of directly 
governing the Gen., and accordingly are uniformly followed by the Gen. 
of a noun, as Rom. xv. 22 ἐνεκοπτόμην ... τοῦ ἐλθεῖν, Luke iv. 42 καὶ 
κατεῖχον αὐτὸν τοῦ μὴ πορεύεσθαι (cf. Isocr. ep. 7, 1012 ἀπέχειν τοῦ τινας 
ἀποκτείνειν, Xen. M. 2,1,16; Α. 8, ὅ, 11), with a pleonastic negative 342 
(§ 65) Acts xiv. 18 μόλες κατέπαυσαν τοὺς ὄχλους τοῦ μὴ θύειν αὐτοῖς (cf. 
παύειν τινά τινος and παύεσθαι followed by Inf. with τοῦ Diod. S. 3, 33; 
Phalar. ep. 35, also ἡσυχάζειν τοῦ ποιεῖν Malalas 17, p. 417), xx. 27 οὐχ 
ὑπεστειλάμην τοῦ μὴ ἀναγγεῖλαι ὑμῖν πᾶσαν τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θεοῦ (cf. vs. 20), 


326 § 44, THE INFINITIVE. 


1 Pet. iii. 10 παυσάτω τὴν γλῶσσαν αὑτοῦ ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ χείλη αὑτοῦ τοῦ μὴ 

λαλῆσαι δόλον, Luke xxiv. 16 οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἐκρατοῦντο τοῦ μὴ ἐπιγνῶναι αὐτόν 

(Xen. Laced. 4, 6), Rom. vi. 6; Acts x. 47 (Sus. 9; 3 Esr. ii. 24; γ. 69, 

70; Gen. xvi. 2; Act. Thom. § 19; Protev. Jac. 2 ete.). Perhaps also 

φεύγειν and ἐκφεύγειν τοῦ ποιῆσαι is best explained in this way (as φεύγειν 

τινός is used), Xen. A.1, 3,2. Cf. Bhdy. 356; Bttm. exc. II. ad Demosth. 
Mid. p. 143. 

In Rom. i. 24 παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς... εἰς ἀκαθαρσίαν τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι 

τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς the Inf. depends directly on the noun, ἀκαθαρσ., 

306 and there is nothing strange in the omission of τήν before ἀκαθ. (xv. 23 ; 

ith ed. 1 Cor. ix. 6). The Gen. indicates in what this ἀκαθ. consisted : commisit 

impuritati, quae cernebatur in etc. Fr. with more detail says: virgula 

post ἀκαθαρσ. collocata ante τοῦ mente repete ἀκαθαρσίαν. The ‘need of 

this I cannot perceive, as ἀκαθαρσ. ἃπα drag. stand close together, and 

the Gen. may naturally be understood of the sphere of the ἀκαθαρσ. In 

the same way, too, in Rom. viii. 12 the Inf. rod κατὰ σάρκα ζῆν is to be 

understood as depending on ὀφειλέτην, in conformity to the regular phrase 

ὀφειλέτην εἶναί twos; see Fr. Matt. p. 844. Finally, in Luke i. 73 τοῦ 

δοῦναι in the same way is most naturally connected with ὅρκον, cf. Jer. xi. 5. 


It soon became usual, however, to employ this construction more 
loosely, not only a) After verbs involving the idea of (entreaty)! 
292 command,? determination, and thus indirectly of design, Acts xv. 20 
bth el. κρίνω ... ἐπιστεῖλαι αὐτοῖς τοῦ ἀπέχεσθαι to send them the direction 
to abstain, Luke iv. 10 (from the Sept.) τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὑτοῦ ἐντε- 
λεῖται περὶ σοῦ Tod διαφυλάξαι, Acts xxvii. 1 (where it would be 
forced to connect tod ἀποπλεῖν with the following παρεδίδουν, οἵ. 
Ruth ii. 9; 1 Kings i. 835; 1 Macc. i. 62; iii. 381; v.25 ix. 69; 
Malal. Chron. 18,458; Ducas p. 201, 217, 339, a.; Fabric. Pseudepigr. 

I. 707; Vit. Epiph. p. 346;— but also, Ὁ) For epexegesis, where 

an Inf. with or without ὥςτε might have been used, and the im- 
port of the Gen. is lost by blending result and design. Very fre- 
848 quently so in the Sept.; (> with the Inf. denotes both design and 
result ; as to εἰς with the Inf. see afterwards). In the N.T. com- 
pare Acts vii. 19 οὗτος κατασοφισάμενος ... ἐκάκωσε τοὺς πατέρας 
ἡμῶν τοῦ ποιεῖν ἔκθετα τὰ βρέφη etc., so that they cast out (cf. 
Thuc. 2, 42, and Poppo in loc.), and what is still harsher iii. 12 

ὡς πεποιηκόσι τοῦ περιπατεῖν αὐτόν (1 Kings xvi.19). In both 


1 Cf. Malalas 14, 857 ἠτήσατο ἣ Αὔγουστα τὸν βασιλέα, τοῦ κατελθεῖν εἰς τοὺς 
ἁγίους τόπους, 17, 422 πυκνῶς ἔγραφε τοῖς αὐτοῖς πατρικίοις τοῦ φροντισθῆναι τὴν 
πόλιν, 18, 440 κελεύσας τοῦ δοθῆναι αὐταῖς χάριν προικὸς ἀνὰ χρυσίου λιτρῶν εἴκοσι etc. 
18, 461. 

2 A construction parallel to κελεύειν ἵνα. 


oe 
- _ 
Ἢ 


8 44. THE INFINITIVE. 397 


these passages Fr.’s exposition (Matt. p. 846) is undoubtedly to be 
rejected ; otherwise, many passages of the Sept. would either be 
inexplicable, or would admit of but a very forced interpretation. 
Cf. in particular Josh. xxii. 26 εἴπαμεν ποιῆσαι οὕτω τοῦ οἰκοδομῆσαι, 
1 Kings xiii. 16 οὐ μὴ δύνωμαι τοῦ ἐπιστρέψαι (1 Mace. vi. 27), 
xvi. 19 ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτοῦ, ὧν ἐποίησε τοῦ ποιῆσαι TO πονηρόν 
etc., Judith xiii. 20 ποιήσαι σοι αὐτὰ ὁ θεὸς εἰς ὕψος αἰώνιον τοῦ 
ἐπισκέψασθαί σε ἐν ἀγαθοῖς, 1 Mace. vi. 59 στήσωμεν αὐτοῖς τοῦ 
πορεύεσθαι τοῖς νομίμοις, Joel ii. 21 ἐμεγάλυνε κύριος τοῦ ποιῆσαι. 


How diversified the use of the Inf. with τοῦ in the Sept. is, may be 
seen from the following passages (which can easily be classified and which 
exhibit more or less distinctly the relation denoted by the Genitive) : 
Gen. xxxi. 20; xxxiv. 17; xxxvii. 18; xxxix. 10; Exod. ii. 18; vii. 14; 
viii. 29; ix.17; xiv.5; Josh. xxiii. 13; Judg. ii. 17, 21, 22; viii. 1; ix. 24, 
87; xii. 6; xvi. 6; xviii. 9; xxi. 3,7; 1 Sam. vii. 8; xii. 23; xiv. 34; 
xy. 26; 1 Kings 11. 8 ; ili. 11; xii. 24; xv.21; xvi. 7,31; Ps. xxxix.14; 
Jonah i. 4; iii. 4; Mal. ii. 10; 3 Esr. i. 33; iv. 41; v. 67; Judith ii. 13; 
v. 4; vii. 13; Ruthi. 12, 16,18; iii. 3; iv.4,7,15. See also Thilo, Act. 
Thom. p. 20; Tdf. in the Verhandeling. p.141. Cf. Acta apocr. p. 68, 85, 
124, 127, etc. This Infin. is by no means unfrequent in Byzantine authors ; 
as, Malal. 18,452; 18,491; cf. Index to Ducas p. 639, where p. 320 even 
εἰ βούλεται τοῦ εἶναι φίλος occurs, cf. p. 189, and p. 203 δύναται τοῦ 
ἀνταποκριθῆναι. This use of rod must be recognized as an extravagance of 
declining (Hellenistic) Greek, unless forced interpretations be preferred. 
In Hellenistic writers this construction appears to have become the 
counterpart of the Inf. with > in its manifold relations; and, as generally 
takes place in established phrases, they no longer thought of the original 
Genitive force." Analogous to this, moreover, is the Byzantine usage of 
inserting ὥςτε before the Inf. after such verbs as βουλεύεσθαι, δοκεῖν ete. ; 
see Index to Malalas, Bonn ed., cf. above, no. 3. 

In Rev. xii. 7 ἐγένετο πόλεμος ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὃ Μιχαὴλ καὶ of ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ 
τοῦ πολεμῆσαι (where the received text has the correction ἐπολέμησαν) 
a construction occurs which I am unable to explain (Liicke, too, in his 
Einleit. in die Offenbar. Joh. 2 Aufl. S. 454f., was unable), unless we 
may consider 6 Μιχ. καὶ of ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ as a parenthesis — awkward to be 
sure — which compelled the writer to resume then the éyév. πόλεμος in 
the construction τοῦ πολεμ. Fr.’s exposition (Matt. p. 844) appears to 
me artificial. It would, however, be still more inadmissible to take τοῦ 


1In Aesop. 172 de Fur. we find ἔμελλεν αὐτὸς τοῦ καταθῦσαι ταύτην, where Schif. 
thinking solely of the above use of the Genitive Inf. (no. 4 b.) would reject the τοῦ. 

5 Even native Greeks could consider this Inf. after such verbs as δύναμαι, θέλω etc. as 
a sort of Genitive, inasmuch as the action expressed by the Inf. always depends on the 
principal verb as a part depends on the whole. 


901 
τὰ ed, 


293 
6th ed. 


344 


328 844. THE INFINITIVE. 


πολεμ. for an imitation of the (later) Hebrew mnbnm> pugnandum iis erat, 
as Ewald and Ziillig do. For even in the Sept. that construction is in no 
passage rendered so strangely. If ἐγένετο rod πολεμῆσαι alone were the 
reading, there would be a parallel in Acts x. 25 (see just below), and the 
construction would be tolerably explicable. Perhaps, however, the passage 
contains an ancient gloss, or something fell out of the text, at an early 
period, before rod πολεμ. There is no plausibility in the proposal of 
Bornem. (Jen. L. Z. 1845, nr. 183) to read: ἐγένετο πολέμιος ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ 
ὁ Μιχαήλ ete. ; and with Hengstenberg boldly to supply had war before 
τοῦ πολ. would be to make John chargeable with a strange latitude in the 
use of words. Acts x. 25 ἐγένετο τοῦ εἰςελθεῖν τὸν Πέτρον, where τοῦ is 
critically established, cannot be compa¥ed to the usage mentioned by Gesen. 


308 Lehrgeb. 5. 786 f., for according to this it must have run: éyév. ὁ [érpos 
th οἱ, τοῦ εἰςελθεῖν ; it is an extravagant use of the Inf. with rod! which in 


Luke certainly must be very surprising. Bornem. considers the whole 
clause as spurious, — but the reader is referred to B. himself for the 
manner in which he thinks the text should be made up. Likewise in 
Luke xvii. 1 dvévdexrov ἐστι τοῦ μὴ ἐλθεῖν τὰ σκάνδαλα some Codd. omit 
the τοῦ. If itis genuine (both Lchm. and Tdf. have retained it), the Genitive 
is owing probably to the notion of distance or exclusion implied in avé- 
dexr., cf. above, no. 4b. The view of Mey. is different. 


5. The Dative of the Inf. denotes the cause, according to the 


294 inherent import of that case, see § 31, 6c. (Mtth. 1258; Schaef. 
6th οὐ, Demosth. II. 163; Stallb. Plat. Tim. p. 203), 2 Cor. ii. 13 οὐκ ἔσχηκα 


345 


ἄνεσιν τῷ πνεύματί μου τῷ μὴ εὑρεῖν Τίτον because I found not 
ete. ; cf. Xen. C. 4, ὅ, 9; Demosth. pac. 21 ο., funebr. 156 b., ep. 4 p. 
119b.; Achill. Tat.5, 24; Lucian. abdic. 5; Diog. L. 10, 27; Liban. 
ep.8; Athen. 9,375; Joseph. antt. 14, 10,1; Simplic. in Epict. enchir. 
ο. 88, p. 385; Schweigh. Agath. 5,16. This Inf. is understood by 
some as denoting design in 1 Thess. iii. 3 τῷ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι ἐν 
ταῖς θλίψεσι in order that no one be shaken etc., as it were ‘ for the 
not being shaken’ (Schott. in loc.), a thought which is subordinate 
to the εἰς τὸ στηρίξαι, and therefore was not expressed by a repetition 
of this form. No such Dat. Infin., however, occurs in Greek ; and 
we must read with good Codd. [Sin. included] τὸ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι, 
which has now been received into the text. See above, 1. Remark. 

6. The Infinitive in an oblique case is often joined to a preposition, 
particularly in narration, and almost more frequently in the N. Τὶ 
than in Greek authors. The Article is then never omitted (Hm. 


1Cf. Acta apocr. p. 66 ὡς ἐγένετο τοῦ τελέσαι αὐτοὺς διδάσκοντας etc. Under this 
head would come also Acts ii. 1 if the reading were καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις 
τοῦ συμπληροῦσθαι. 





§ 44, THE INFINITIVE. 829 


Vig. 702; Krii. 94),! though several words may be inserted between 
the Article and the Inf. (Acts viii. 11; Heb. xi. 3; 1 Pet. iv. 2) ;? 
as, Matt. xiii. 25 ἐν τῷ καθεύδειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους while men slept, 
Gal. iv. 18; Luke i. 8; Acts viii. 6 (Xen. Cyr. 1, 4,5; Hiero 1, 
6); iii. 26 εὐλογοῦντα ὑμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἀποστρέφειν etc. by turning away, 
in that he turns away (Heb. iii. 12); = Phil. i. 28 ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων 
εἰς τὸ ἀναλῦσαι desire towards departing (to depart), Jas. i. 19 
βραδὺς eis τὸ λαλῆσαι slow to speak, 1 Cor. x. 6 εἰς τὸ μὴ εἶναι 309 
ὑμᾶς ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν to the end that ye be not etc., ix.18; 2 Cor, tho 
iv. 4; vii. 3; Matt. xxvi. 2; Luke iv. 29; Acts vii. 19 (Xen. C. 
1, 4,5; An. 7, 8, 20) Rom. iv. 18 (see Philippi), 1 Thess. ii. 16 ; 
2 Cor. viii. 6 εἰς τὸ παρακαλέσαι ἡμᾶς Τίτον so that we besought Titus 
(lit., unto the beseeching etc.),? Rom. vii. 5; Heb. xi. 8 ; Heb. 
ii. 15 διὰ παντὸς τοῦ ζῆν (through) all their lifetime, Phil. i. T dca 
τὸ ἔχειν με ἐν TH καρδίᾳ ὑμᾶς because I have you etc.,* Acts viii. 11; 
xviii. 2; Heb. vii. 23; x. 2; Luke ii. 4; Mark v. 4 (Xen. Ὁ. 1, 4, 
5; Mem. 2,1, 15; Aristot. rhet. 2,13; Pol. 2,5,2); Jas.iv. 15 
ἀντὶ τοῦ λέγειν ὑμᾶς instead ef your saying (Xen. Apol. 8; Plat. 295 
rep. 1, 348 a.) ; Matt. vi. 8 πρὸ τοῦ ὑμᾶς αἰτῆσαι before your hel 
asking, Luke ii. 21; xxii. 15; Acts xxiii. 15 (Zeph. ii. 2; Plato, 
Crit.48d.); Matt. vi. 1 πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς in order to be 
seen of them, 2 Cor. iii. 13; 1 Thess. ii. 9; Luke xviii. 1 ἔλεγεν 
παραβολὴν πρὸς τὸ δεῖν πάντοτε προςεύχεσθαι in reference to etc. ; 
Matt. xxvi. 82 μετὰ τὸ ἐγερθῆναί με after my resurrection, when I 346 
shall have been raised, Luke xii.5; Mark i. 14; Acts vii. 4; xv. 18 
(Herod. 2, 9,6; 8, 5, 10); 2 Cor. vii. 12 εἵνεκεν τοῦ pavepw- 
θῆναι τὴν σπουδὴν ὑμῶν (Demosth. fun. 516 a. b.; Plato, Sis. 390 b.; 
D.S. exc. Vat. p. 39. Also inscript. Rosett. 11). 

Paul with peculiar frequency expresses purpose by the Infinitive with 
eis or πρός, while in such cases the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
prefers a derivative noun ; see Schulz, Hebrierbr. 5. 146 ff. But cf. also 
1 Cor. vii. 35. 


1 On the other hand, cf. Theodoret. III. 424 ἀπὸ κυβεύειν τὸ ὄνομα, LV. 851 παρὰ 
συγκλώθεσθαι, Psalt. Sal. 4,9. Similar constructions sometimes occur in Greek prose 
(Bhdy. 354; Kiihner 11. 352), but it is uncertain, 

2 Yet not so many, and not entire clauses even, as frequently in Greek authors 
(Xen. Occ. 13, 6; Cyr. 4, 5,9; 7, 5, 42 ete.). The adjuncts, too, are uniformly put 
after the Inf. An Inf. with ἄχρι or μέχρι never occurs ; with ἕνεκα only once. 

8 The rendering of the Inf. with es by so that is unobjectionable, as εἰς is elsewhere 
employed to express alike either aim or result ; οἵ, Eurip. Bacch. 1161. 

* Against the other exposition, according to which ὑμᾶς is taken as the subject, see 
van Hengel in loc. Even where the subject is placed after the Infinitive the proper 
construction is always to be determined by the context, e.g. Simplic. enchir. 13 p. 90 
διὰ τὸ πολεμίους μιμεῖσθαι τοὺς συγγυμναστάς. Cf. Jno. i. 49. 

42 


330 § 44, THE INFINITIVE. 


If in this construction of the Inf. with a prep. a subject be annexed, it 
is put in the Acc. even when it is one and the same with the subject of 
the principal clause ; as, Heb. vii. 24 6 δὲ διὰ τὸ μένειν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα 
«ον ἔχει, Luke ii. 4. Predicates also stand then in the Acc.; as, Luke xi. 8 
δώσει αὐτῷ διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοῦ φίλον; but ef. Xen. Cyr. 1, 4,3 διὰ τὸ 
φιλομαθὴς εἶναι... αὐτὸς ἀνηρώτα, Mtth. 1284. Yet the attraction, which 
properly accounts for the Nominative, is also in other circumstances omitted 
in Greek authors. 

The Inf. (without the Article) after πρίν or πρὶν 4 (Reitz, Lucian. IV. 
501 ed. Lehm.), may be considered as Inf. nominascens; e.g. Jno. iv. 49 
κατάβηθι πρὶν ἀποθανεῖν τὸ παιδίον pov is equivalent to πρὸ τοῦ ἀποθ. ete. 
The Inf. with this particle is employed not only in connection with a Fut. 

910 or Imperf. in reference to a still impending fact (Mtth. 1200) Matt. xxvi. 34 

ith ed. (Acts ii. 20) ; but also in reference to past events (Xen. C. 3, 3, 60; An. 
1, 4,18; Herod. 1, 10,15) in connection with Preterites, Matt. i. 18; Acts 
vii. 2; Jno. viii. 58. As to πρὶν 7 cf. Her. 2, 2; 4, 167. 


7. The well-known distinction between the Inf. Pres. and Inf. 
Aor., as well as between the Inf. Aor. and Inf. Fut. (Hm. Vig. 
p. 773),! is for the most part very clearly observed in the N. T. 
The Inf. Aorist is employed, 

a. In narration after a Preterite on which it depends (in accord- 
ance with that parity of tenses carefully observed in Greck, see 
Schaef. Demosth. III. 432; Stallb. Phileb. p. 86 and Phaed. p. 32) ; 
as, Mark ii. 4 μὴ δυνάμενοι προςεγγίσαι αὐτῷ ... ἀπεστέγασαν, Xil. 

296 12 ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν κρατῆσαι, ν. 3 οὐδεὶς ἠδύνατο αὐτὸν δῆσαι, Luke 

θὰ el. xviii. 18 οὐκ ἤθελεν οὐδὲ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐπᾶραι, Jno. 

847 vi. 21; vii. 44; Matt. i. 19; viii. 29; xiv. 28 ; xviii. 23; xxiii. 37 ; 
xxvi. 40 ; xxvii. 84; Mark vi. 19, 48 ; Luke vi. 48; x. 24; xv. 28; 
xix. 27; Acts x.10; xvii. 3; xxv. 7; Col.i.27; Gal. iv. 20; Philem. 
14; Jude 8. This is quite regular, and requires no proof from 
Greek authors, Mdv. 188. (Sometimes, however, we find the Inf. 
Pres., as in Jno. xvi. 19; Acts xix. 33; Luke vi. 19, and in parallel 
passages the Inf. Pres. is used in Matt. xxiii. 37, while in Luke 
xiii. 34 the Inf. Aor.) Likewise the Inf. Aor. is uniformly con- 
nected with the Imp. Aor. ; as, Matt. viii. 22 ἄφες τοὺς νεκροὺς 
θάψαι τοὺς ἑαυτῶν νεκρούς, xiv. 28; Mark vii. 27. 


1 Stallb. Plat. Euthyd. p. 140: Aoristus (Infin.) quia nullam facit significationem 
perpetuitatis et continuationis, prouti vel initium vel progressus vel finis actionis verbo 
expressae spectatur, ita solet usurpari, ut dicatur vel de eo, quod statim et e vestigio 
fit ideoque etiam certo futurum est, vel de re semel tantum eveniente, quae diuturnitatis 
et perpetuitatis cogitationem aut non fert aut certe non requirit, vel denique de re brevi 
et uno yeluti temporis ictu peracta. 


8 44, THE INFINITIVE. 331 


b. After any tense, when an action (rapidly) passing, completed 

at once, or instantly to begin, is to be expressed (Hm. Vig. as 
above); as, Mark xiv. 31 ἐάν pe δέη συναποθανεῖν σοι, xv. 31 ἑαυτὸν 
οὐ δύναται σῶσαι, Matt. xix. 8 εἰ ἔξεστιν ἀνθρώπῳ ἀπολῦσαι τὴν 
γυναῖκα, 1 Cor. xv. 53 δεῖ τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀφθαρσίαν. 
Cf. Jno. iii. 45 v.10; ix. 27; xii. 21; Acts iv. 16; Revsii. 21; 
2 Cor. x. 12; xii. 4; 1 Thess. ii.8; Eph. iii.18. Under this head 
comes also Jno. v. 44 {πιστεύειν signifies to exercise faith, to become 
a believer). 

c. In particular, after verbs of hoping, promising, commanding, 
wishing, and many others, the Greeks frequently employ the Inf. 
Aor. (Lob. Phryn. p. 751 sq. ; Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 153; Ast, 
Theophr. char. p. 50 sq.; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 525,719; Weber, 
Demosth. 343, especially Schlosser, vindic. N. T. locor. adv. Mare- 
land. Hamb. 1742, 4to. p. 20 sqq.), viz. where the action is to 
be designated merely as brought to pass (‘‘ab omni temporis 
definiti conditione libera et immunis,’’ Stallb. Plat. Euthyd. p. 140; 
Weber, Dem. as above) ;! whereas the Inf. Pres. has reference to 311 
the continuance of the action, or represents it as just now occurring, Tae 
and the Inf. Fut. (after verbs of hoping, promising) represents it as 
not to occur till some future time of indefinite remoteness (Held, 
Plutarch. Timol. p. 215 sq.; ef. Stallb. Plat. Crit. p.138; Pflugk, 
Eur. Heracl. p. 54 sq.). In the N. T. ἐλπίζω is uniformly followed 
by the Inf. Aor. [since only in Acts xxvi. Τ is the Infin. Future 
found as the solitary variant of Cod. B], and none of the examples 
will occasion any difficulty, especially as it often depends upon the 
writer how he will view the action; as, Luke vi. 34 παρ᾽ ὧν ἐλπίζετε 
ἀπολαβεῖν, Phil. ii. 23 τοῦτον ἐλπίζω πέμψαι, ὡς ἂν ἀπίδω etc. vs. 
19; 2Jno. 12 ἐλπίζω γενέσθαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, 3 Jno, 14; Acts xxvi.7; 
Rom. xv. 24; 1 Tim. iii. 14; 1 Cor. xvi. 7; 2 Cor. x. 15.3.. Like- 
wise ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι is usually construed with the Inf. Aor.; as, 297 
Mark xiv. 11 ἐπηγγείλατο αὐτῷ δοῦναι, Acts iii.18; vii.5; similarly δ 3 
ὄμνυμι, Acts 11. 80 ὅρκῳ ὥμοσεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος 
αὐτοῦ καθίσαι ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου ; on the other hand, see Inf. Fut. in 


1 It is less probable that the Inf. Aor, is intended to designate the action as rapidly 
passing (Z/m. Soph. Aj. p. 160; Ariig. Dion, H. p. 101, and others) ; this element hardly 
comes to view in the case of a hope or a command. 

2 For an Inf. Perf. after ἐλπίζω see 2 Cor. vy. 11 ἐλπίζω καὶ ἐν ταῖς συνειδήσεσιν ὑμῶν 
πεφανερῶσθαι that I have been made manifest, where ἐλπίζω is not exactly equivalent to 
νομίζω, but indicates an impression still requiring confirmation ; but the Inf. Perf. after 
the preceding πεφανερώμεθα needs no explanation. Cf. Iliad. 15, 110 ἤδη viv ἔλπομ᾽ 
“Apnt γε πῆμα τετύχθαι, appropriately quoted by Mey. Further, cf. below (no. 7, end). 


832 § 44, THE INFINITIVE. 


Heb. iii. 18 ; Weber, Demosth. 330. After κελεύειν the Inf. Aor, 
is more frequent than the Inf. Pres., the latter being used for the 

most part in reference to a continued action; as, Acts xvi. 22 
ἐκέλευον ῥαβδίξειν, xxiii. 35 ἐκέλευσε αὐτὸν ἐν TS πραιτωρίῳ φυλάσ- 
σεσθαι, xxiii. 3; xxv. 21 ete. Παρακαλεῖν has the Inf. Aor. in 
Rom. xii. 1; xv. 30; 2 Cor. ii. 8; Eph. iv. 1, etc.; but the Inf. 
Pres. in Rom. xvi. 17; 1 Thess. iv. 10; 1 Tim. ii. 1. 


This explains also the use of the Inf. Aor. after ἕτοιμος and ἐν ἑτοίμῳ 
ἔχειν (in reference to the future), as in 2 Cor. x. 6; xii. 14; 1 Pet.i. 5; 
Acts xxi. 13, which is more frequent than the Inf. Pres. The former is 
on the whole rare in Greek authors; yet ef. Dion. H. III. 1536 (Joseph. 
antt. 12,4, 2; 6, 9,2). In the N. T. πρίν also is uniformly used with the 
Inf. Aor. ; and when πρίν refers to the future, the Inf. Aor, has the mean- 
ing of the Fut. exact. See Hm. Eurip. Med. p. 343. 

Whether in the N, Τ᾿ the Inf. Aor. ever has the force of a Preterite, 
except in the use considered in 7 a., is questionable. ' In Rom. xy. 9 
τὰ ἔθνη ὑπὲρ ἐλέους δοξάσαι τὸν θεόν this might seem at first to be the 
case, as the Inf. depends on λέγω vs. 8 (Mdv. S. 187) and corresponds to 

812 a Perfect γεγενῆσθαι, while Paul would certainly have expressed continuous 

ith el. glorifying by a Present. Probably, however, he merely wished to express 
the act of glorifying without reference to time at all. Likewise in 2 Cor. 
vi. 1 it is not necessary to take δέξασθαι as a Preterite, as even Mey. does 
[yet not in the later editions], though the connection which Fr. Rom. III. 
241 suggests between vi. 1 and v. 20 is somewhat far-fetched. Probably 
in later Greek the Inf. Perf. quite superseded the Inf. Aor. in such cases, 
as being more expressive ; see p. 334 below, no. 7, end. 


The Inf. Present is generally employed to express an action just 
taking place, or (in itself or its results) continuing, or frequently 
repeated ; as, Jno. ix. 4 ἐμὲ δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι τὰ ἔργω τοῦ πέμψαντός 
Me, vil. 17 ἐάν τις θέλῃ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν, xvi. 12 οὐ δύνασθε 
βαστάζξειν ἄρτι, iii. 80; Acts xvi. 21 ; xix.33; Gal. vi. 13; 1 Cor. 
xv. 25; 1 Tim. ii. 8; Tit. i. 11; Phil. 1. 12. Hence it is used in 
general maxims; as, Luke xvi. 13 οὐδεὶς οἰκέτης δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις 

849 δουλεύειν, Mark ii. 19; Acts v. 29; Matt. xii. 2,10; Jas. iii. 10, 
etc. Verbs of believing, are construed with the Inf. Pres. to ex- 
press something which already exists or at least has already com- 
menced (Hm. Soph. Oed. C. 91); as in 1 Cor. vii. 86; Phil. i. 17 
(16). See Ast, Plat. lege. p. 204. As to κελεύειν with the Inf. 
Pres. see above. 

If this distinction is not always rigorously observed where it 
might be expected, this may be explained by the circumstance 
that in many cases it depends entirely on the writer whether he 


δ: 


844. THE INFINITIVE. 393 


will represent an action as continuing, or as transient and occupy- 298 
ing only a point of the past (cf. Luke xix.5; Matt. xxii. 17); and δ οἱ 
by the fact that some writers are negligent in such matters. Hence 
in parallel passages we sometimes find the Inf. Aor. and Inf. Pres. 
employed in the same relation; as, Matt. xxiv. 24 cf. Mark xiii. 22; 
Matt. xiii. 3 cf. Luke viii. 5, also Jude 8. The like occurs even 
in the better Greek authors; as, Xen. Cyr. 1,4, 1 εἴ te τοῦ βασιλέως 
δέοιντο, τοὺς παῖδας ἐκέλευον τοῦ Κύρου δεῖσθαι διαπράξασθαι 
σφίσι: ὁ δὲ Κῦρος, εἰ δέοιντο αὐτοῦ οἱ παῖδες, περὶ παντὸς ἐποιεῖτο 
διαπράττεσθαι, , 1, 45 ἣν ἐμὲ ἐάσῃς πέμψαι, 46 ἐκέλευσε 
πέμπειν, 2,4, 10 ods ἄν τις βούληται ἀγαθοὺς συνεργοὺς ποιεῖσθαν 
... ods δὲ δὴ τῶν εἰς τὸν πόλεμον ἔργων ποιήσασθαί τις βούλοιτο 
συνεργοὺς προθύμους (cf. Poppo in loc.), Demosth. Timocr. 466 a. 
μὴ ἐξεῖναι χῦσ at μηδένα (vopor), ἐὰν μὴ ἐν νομοθέταις, τότε δ᾽ ἐξεῖναι 
τῷ βουλομένῳ ... λύειν. Cf. also Arrian. Al. ὅ, 2,0. We find 
a perceptible distinction, however, between the Inf. Pres. and the 
Inf. Aor. in parallel clauses e.g. in Xen. C. 5,1, 2.3; Mem. 1, 1, 
14: Her. 6, 177 etc., see Mtth. 944; Weber, Demosth. 195, 492. 
In the N. T. ef. Matt. xiv. 22 ἠνάγκασε τυὺς μαθητὰς ἐμβῆναε eis 
τὸ πλοῖον (quickly passing action) καὶ προάγειν (continued) 
αὐτόν etc. Luke xiv. 30; Phil. i. 21. See in general Maetzner, 313 
Antiphon p. 153 sq. Τὰ ed 


It appears, on the whole, that where the Inf. Pres. and Inf. Aor. may 
be used indiscriminately, the latter is the more common (as being the less 
definite), particularly after ἔχω possum (Hm. Eur.suppl. p. 12 praef.), δύναμαι, 
δυνατός εἶμι, θέλω, etc. In the Codd. of Greek authors the Inf. Pres. and 
Inf. Aor. are not unfrequently interchanged, see Xen. C. 2, 2,13; Arrian. 
Al. 4, 6,1; Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 904, 941, ete. So likewise in the N. T., 
cf. Jno. x. 21; Acts xvi. 7; 1 Cor. xiv. 35; 1 Thess. ii. 12. 

The preceding remarks will also account for the use of the Inf. Aor. after 
hypothetical clauses, as in Jno. xxi. 25 ἅτινα, ἐὰν γράφηται καθ᾽ ἕν, οὐδὲ αὐτὸν 
οἶμαι τὸν κόσμον χωρῆσαι non comprehensurum esse, where some unneces- 350 
sarily would insert dv; cf. Isocr. Trapez. 862; Demosth. Timoth. 702 a. ; 
Thue. 7, 28; Plat. Protag. 510 6. (in some of which cases, it is true, εἶ 
with the Opt. precedes). The expression is more confident (without ἄν), 
see Stallb. Plat. Protag. p. 43; cf. Lésner, obs. p. 162 sq. The Inf. Fut. 
(that is, also without ἄν, cf. Hm. partic. ἄν p. 187) is not singular in such 
constructions, Isoer. ep. 3 p. 984. 

As to the construction of μέλλειν, in particular, with the Inf., that verb 
in Greek authors is most frequently used with the Inf. Fut. (cf. also 
Ellendt, Arrian. Al. IT. 206 sq.), more rarely with the Inf. Pres. (cf. Dion. 
H. IV. 2226, 8; Arrian, Al. 1, 20,13; 5, 21,1, and Kriiger, Dion. p. 498), 


884 844. THE INFINITIVE. 


\ 


This, however, is not very surprising as the notion of futurity is already 
implied in μέλλειν, and the construction is analogous to that of ἐλπίζειν. 
It is still more rarely used with the Inf. Aor. (Plat. apol. 30 b.; Isoer. 
Callim. p. 908 ; Thue. 5, 98; Paus. 8, 28,3; Ael. 3,27). This last. con- 
struction, indeed, some ancient grammarians (e.g. Phrynich. p- 336) pro- 
nounce to be un-Greek, or rather un-Attic; but they have been thoroughly 
299 confuted with a considerable number of undoubted examples by Béckh, 
bik ed, Pind. Olymp. 8, 82; Elmsley, Eurip. Heracl. p. 117; Bremi, Lys. p. 745 ff, 
cf. also Hm. Soph. Aj. p. 149. In the N. T. we most frequently find after 
μέλλειν, a. the Inf. Pres. (in the Gospels always) ; only in a few passages, 
b. the Inf. Aor., and that mostly in reference to transient actions, as in 
4 Rey. iii. 2 μέλλει ἀποθανεῖν, iii. 16 μ. ἐμέσαι, xii. 4 μ. τεκεῖν, Gal. iii. 23 τὴν 
μέλλουσαν πίστιν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι, cf. Rom. viii. 18 (but 1 Pet. v. 1) ; Ὁ. more 
rarely the Inf. Fut., viz. in Acts xi. 28 λιμὸν μέγαν μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι, xxiv. 15 
ἀνάστασιν μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι νεκρῶν, xxvii. 10 (xxiv. 25). 

The Perfect Inf. is frequently employed, especially in narration, 
to denote a past event in its relation to present time; as, Acts 
Xvi. 27 ἔμελλεν ἑαυτὸν ἀναιρεῖν, νομίζων ἐκπεφευγέναι τοὺς δεσμίους 
had fled, and accordingly were away, xxvii. 18 δόξαντες τῆς προθέ- 
σεως κεκρατηκέναι they had (already) obtained their purpose (and 
were thus in possession of the advantages), viii. 11; xxvii. 9; 
xxvi. 82; Heb. xi. 3; Rom. iv. 1; xv. 8,19; Mark v. 4; Jno. 

314 xii. 18, 29; 2 Tim. ii. 18 (1 Pet. iv. 3) 2 Pet. ii. 21. In several 

ith οἱ, of these passages, after verbs of saying, supposing, thinking, a Greek 
author would perhaps have considered the Inf. Aorist as sufficient, 
Mdy. 187. On. 2 Cor. v. 11 see p. 331 note 2; as to 1 Tim. vi. 17 
see ὃ 40, 4 ἃ. p. 27%. . 

8.That the N. T. writers sometimes (see below, p. 338 sq.) use ἵνα 
where, according to the syntax of (the written) Greek prose, simply 
the Inf. (Pres. or Aor., not the Perf.) should be expected, was 

351 correctly admitted by the earlier biblical philologists, but has been 
resolutely denied by Fr. (exc. I. ad Matt., yet see Rom. III. 230), 
whom Mey., and almost nobody else hitherto, has followed. In 
such phrases as the following, Matt. iv. 8 εὐπέ, ἵνα οἱ λίθοι οὗτοι 
ἄρτοι γένωνται, xvi. 20 διεστείλατο τοῖς μαθηταῖς, ἵνα μηδενὶ εἴπωσιν 
etc., and particularly Mark v. 10 παρεκάλει αὐτὸν πολλά, ἵνα μὴ 
αὐτοὺς ἀποστείλῃ etc., the original meaning of ἵνα might indeed be 
retained, and the phrases rendered : speak (a word of power), to the 


1 On the other hand, Tittmann, Synon. II. 46 sqq., Wahl (also in the Clav. apocryph. 
p- 272), and Bretschneider agree with me in the view for which I contend. Besides, 
compare Robinson, a Greek and English Lexicon of the N. T. (New York, 1850. 8yo.} 
Ῥ. 352 sq. 


§44. THE INFINITIVE. 335 


end that these stones become bread ; he charged his disciples, to the end 
that they should tell no man; he besought him much, to the end that 
he would not send them away. Still, it would be strange, in the 
first place, that in so many passages, instead of the object of the 
entreaty or of the command, which was to be expected, the design 
should be stated, which in such connections usually merges itself 
in the object. Again, the possibility of the foregoing interpretation 
shows merely how close the affinity is in such a case between the 
design and the object, and how easily therefore ἵνα might have come 
to be employed to denote the latter. It is accordingly much simpler 
to believe that the later language, in accordance with its genius, 
resolved the more condensed construction with the Inf. into a sep- 399 
arate clause and to some extent weakened the import of fa,! just θὲ εἰ, 
as the Romans employed their ut after impero, perswadeo, rogo, inas- 
much as the object of the command, request etc. is always something 
to be accomplished, and therefore the purpose of the person com- 
manding or beseeching.? Traces of this use of ἵνα already occur 315 
in writers of the κοινή. That is to say, in these writers, Tth εἰ 
a. “Iva after verbs of desiring and beseeching already begins to 
pass over into a that of the objective clause ὃ; asin Dion. H. I. 215 
δεήσεσθαι τῆς θυγατρὸς τῆς σῆς ἔμελλον, ἵνα pe πρὸς αὐτὴν ἀγάγοι, 11. 352 
666 sq. κραυγὴ ... ἐγένετο καὶ δεήσεις ... ἵνα μένῃ etc., Charit. 3,1 
παρεκάλει Καλλιῤῥόην ἵνα αὐτῷ προςέλθῃ, Arrian. Epict. 3, 23, 27 
(see Schaef. Melet. p. 121). In the Hellenistic writers this use is 
quite common; as, 2 Mace. ii. 8; Sir xxxvii. 15; xxxviii. 14; 
3 Esr. iv. 46 ; Joseph. antt. 12, 8,2; 14, 9, 4 ; Ignat. Philad. p. 379; 
Cod. pseudepigr. I. 548, 671, 673, 730; II. 705; Act. Thom. 10, 
24, 26; Acta apocr. p. 36.4 As to iva after verbs of commanding 


1 Weakened, because originally ἵνα was employed only where a direct design was to 
be expressed : I come, in order to help thee. Even worthy to be kept the earlier writers 
express not by iva (Matt. viii. 8; Jno. i. 27; vi. 7, etc.), but by the Inf., perhaps with 
ὥςτε (Mtth. 1238). But it does not follow that the weakened ἵνα yet coincides altogether 
with ὥςτε. It appears rather to be for the most-part still recognizable as an extension 
of eo consilio ut. Hence there is no inconsistency in maintaining the above rule on 
one page, and on the next denying that ἵνα is to be considered as equivalent to ὥςτε 
(see § 53, 10). 

2 Those who vehemently combat this view should at least confess that the use of ἵνα 
in the cases mentioned is not in accordance with the (older) prose diction of the Greeks. 
This is the least requirement of grammatical fairness. 

8 A solitary instance in the earlier authors (Demosth. cor. 335 b.) is ἀξιοῦν ἵνα. 

* In the Acts Luke has never employed this construction, but after ἐρωτᾶν and παρα- 
καλεῖν always uses the Inf., see viii. 31; xi. 23; xvi. 39; xix. 31; xxvii. 33. In the 
Gospel also he has in v. 3 the Inf. with ἐρωτᾶν, which occurs also in Jno. iy. 40; 1 Thess. 
v.12. Matthew usually connects παρακαλεῖν with the direct words of the individual 
entreating. ; 


336 § 44, THE INFINITIVE. 


and directing, 1 see Hm. Orph. p. 814; ef. Leo Philos (in epigram- 
mat. gr. libb. 7, Fref. 1600, fol. p. 3) εἰπὲ κασιγνήτῃ κρατεροὺς iva 
θῆρας ἐγείρῃ, Malal. 3 p. 64; Basilic. 1. 147. κελεύειν and θεσπίζειν 
iva (3 Esr. vi. 81; Malal. 10 p. 264), ἐπιτρέπειν ἵνα Malal. 10 p. 264, 
διδάσκειν ἵνα Acta Petri et Pauli 7.2. Accordingly in the N. T. also 
we may cease to insist on the strict force of ἵνα, and may render it 
in the following passages simply by that, just as in Latin praecipe, 
rogavit, imploravit wt ete.: Luke x. 40 εἰπὸν αὐτῇ ἵνα μοι συναντι- 
λάβηται (iv. 3; Mark iii.9; Jno. xi. 57; xiii. 34; xv. 17), 2 Cor. 
ΧΙ. 8 τὸν κύριον παρεκάλεσα iva ἀποστῇ am ἐμοῦ (Mark v.18; 
viii, 22; Luke viii. 81; 1 Cor. i. 10; xvi. 12; 2: Ὁ ον. ἰχ. δ), Mark 
301 Vil. 26 ἡ dics αὐτὸν ἵνα τὸ δαιμ. ἐκβάλῃ (Ino. iv. 47 ; xvii. 15; Luke 
6th el. vii. 36), Luke ix. 40 aoe τῶν βαθηγῶν σου ἵνα ἐμδάχωσιν (xxii. 
32), Phil. i. 9 προςεύχομαι ἵνα ἡ ἀγάπη ὑμῶν ... περισσεύῃ, 
b. Moreover, θέλειν ἵνα also simply means: will (wish) that, cf. 
316 Arrian. Ep.1,18,14; Macar. hom. 32,11; Cod. pseudepigr. I. 704; 
Th el. Thilo, Apoer. I. 546, 684, 706; Tdf. in the Verhandel. Ρ. 141. If 
Matt. vil. 12 ὅσα ἂν θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑμῖν means, wish with the 
design that they do, one cannot understand why 6éxew ἵνα did not 
become a common construction in the language, since θέλειν may 
353 be always so taken. And ought Mark vi. 25 θέλω ἵνα μοι δῷς τὴν 
κεφαλὴν Iwavvov to be rendered: J will in order that thou give me? 
What is the proper object of choice here? Is it not the obtaining 
of John’s head? Why then that circumlocution? And how 
affected it would be to render Mark ix. 30 οὐκ ἤθελεν ἵνα τις γνῷ, 
he would not, in order that any one should know! That nobody 
should know was precisely his object of choice. Cf. also Acts 
xxvii. 42 βουλὴ ἐγένετο, ἵνα τοὺς δεσμώτας ἀποκτείνωσι, JNO. ix. 22 
συνετέθειντο οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι iva ... ἀποσυνάγωγος γένηται, xii. 10 

1 Τὴ the N. T. κελεύειν is never construed with ἵνα. 

2 An analogous construction is the Inf. with τοῦ after verbs of beseeching, exhorting, 
commanding, as in Malal, 17, 422 πυκνῶς ἔγραφε τυῖς αὐτοῖς πατρικίοις τοῦ φροντισθῆναι 
τὴν πόλιν, 18, 440 κελεύσας τοῦ δοθῆναι αὐταῖς χάριν προικὸς ἀνὰ χρυσίου λιτρῶν εἴκοσι 
etc., 461 ἤτησε πᾶς ὁ δῆμος τοῦ ἀχθῆναι πάνδημον, p. 172. Index to Ducas in the Bonn 
ed. p. 639 sq. 

8 Hence the modern Greek cireumlocution for the Inf. : θέλω νὰ γράφω or γράψω, 
for γράφειν, γράψαι. In general how far modern Greek goes in its application of the 
particle x4 — which occurs even in the Byzantine writers, e.g. Cananus (cf. also Bois- 
sonade, Anecd. IV. 367) —a few passages from the Orthodox Confession will show : 
p- 20 (ed. Normann) πρέπει νὰ πιστεύωμεν (p. 24, 30), p. 36 λέγεται νὰ κατοικᾷ, p. 43 
ἐφοβεῖτο νὰ δουλεύῃ (scrupled cf. Matt. i. 20), p. 113 ἠμπορεῖ νὰ δεχθῇ, p. 211 θέλει, ἐπιθυμᾷ 


νὰ ἀποκτήσῃ, Ὁ. 235 ἔχουσι χρέος νὰ νουθετοῦσι, p. 244 εἴμεσθαν χρεωφειλέται νὰ ὑπογένωμεν. 
In the above passages, therefore, the modern Greek translator has almost always retained 


the ἵνα in the form vd. 


§ 44, THE INFINITIVE. 837 


(Sir. xliv. 18), and, as an isolated instance of the commence- 
ment of such construction among the Greeks, Teles in Stob. serm. 
95 p. 524, 40 ἵνα Ζεὺς γένηται ἐπιθυμήσει. Under this head comes 
also ποιεῖν ἵνα in Jno. xi. 37; Col. iv. 16; Rev. iii. 9 (analogous 
to ποιεῖν τοῦ with Inf., see above, no. 4) and διδόναι ἵνα in Mark 
x. 87; see Krebs in loc. Lastly, 

ce. In Matt. x. 25 ἀρκετὸν τῷ μαθητῇ, ἵνα γένηται ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος 
αὐτοῦ, does the interpretation satis sit discipulo non superare magis- 
trum, ut οἱ possit par esse redditus seem easy and agreeable? Cf. 
Jno. i..27; vi. 7; Matt. viii. 8 (Inf. Matt. iii. 11; 1 Cor. xv. 9; 
Luke xv. 19, ete.).. In John iv. 84 ἐμὸν βρῶμά ἐστιν, ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ 
θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με does the use of ἵνα seem to be completely 
justified by the translation meus victus hoc continetur studio, ut 
Dei satisfaciam voluntati ? In that case σπουδάζειν ἵνα must have 
been the ordinary and most natural construction. That in Jno. 
xv. 8 the clause with ἵνα cannot express the design with which 
God glorifies himself (Mey.), has already been shown by Liicke ; 
ef. also xvii. 3. To resolve also Matt. xviii. 6 συμφέρει αὐτῷ, ἵνα 
κρεμασθῇ μύλος ὀνικὸς ... Kal καταποντισθῇ etc. into cup. αὐτῷ 
κρεμασθῆναι μύλον dv.... iva καταποντ. etc. (by an attraction), 
would, 1 greatly fear, be generally thought very forced. And 
Meyer’s opinion is too manifestly a shift. See also Luke xvii. 2; 392 
Jno. xi. 50; xvi. 7; 1 Cor. iv. 2,3; Phil. ii. 2; likewise Luke ‘th ed. 
i. 43 πόθεν μοι τοῦτο, ἵνα ἔλθῃ ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ κυρίου etc.,! on which 
passage Hm. partic. ἄν p. 135 remarks: fuit haec labantis linguae 
quaedam incuria, ut pro infinitivo ista constructione uteretur. In 
fact, in all these phrases every unprejudiced scholar must perceive 
that the clause with ἵνα contains what, in classical Greek, would 
have been expressed by the’ simple Inf. (Mtth. 1235), just as in 
Latin (especially of the silver age) aequum est ut, mos est ut, expedit 
ut was employed, where the mere Inf. (as subject) would have 
been sufficient, see Zumpt S. 522. Sometimes the construction 317 
with ἵνα and that with the Inf. are found connected, as in 1 Cor, Mel 
ix. 15 καλὸν γάρ μοι μᾶλλον ἀποθανεῖν, ἢ TO καύχημά μου ἵνα τις he 
kevoon, Where it is easy to perceive what led the apostle to alter 
the construction ; yet in this passage the iva is not fully estab- 
lished. Thus the traces of the ancient function of the particle of 
design still exhibited in the examples adduced under a., and even 
under Ὁ. also, have entirely disappeared in the passages last illus-: 


1 Analogous is Arrian. Epictet. 1, 10, 8 πρῶτόν ἐστιν, ἵνα ἐγὼ κοιμηθῶ. Cf. besides, 
Acta apocr. p. 8, 15, 29. 


838 § 44, THE INFINITIVE. 


trated. And so we see how modern Greek, gradually extending 
the usage, forms every Infin. by means of va. How far popular 
Greek had already declined in the second century, appears from 
many parts of Phryn., and in particular p. 15 sq. Lobeck’s ed. 


What Wyttenbach, Plutarch. Mor. I. 409 Lips. (p. 517 Oxon.), has ad- 
duced from Greek authors to prove the alleged lax use of iva for ὥςτε, is 
not all to the point. In πείθειν ἵνα (Plut. apophth. 183 a.) the verb is not 
regarded as supplemented by the clause with ἵνα (by persuasion to effect 
that), but as independent: to speak persuasively in order that. Ti μοι 
τοιοῦτο συνέγνως, iva τοιαύταις pe κολακεύσῃς ἡδοναῖς (Plut. fort. Alex. 
p- 333 a.) means: what hast thou discerned in me of the kind in order to 
flatter ? that is, concisely : what could lead you to flatter me? -In Adv. 
Colot. p. 1115 a. (240 ed. Tauchn.) ποῦ τῆς ἀοικήτου τὸ βιβλίον ἔγραφεν, 
iva... μὴ τοῖς ἐκείνου συντάγμασιν ἐντύχῃς, what was properly but result is 
attributed to the writer as design ; so we too say: In what desert then 
did he write his book, to keep you from obtaining it? In Liban. decl. 17 
p. 472 οὐδείς ἐστιν οἰκέτης πονηρός, ἵνα κριθῇ τῆς Μακεδόνων δουλείας ἄξιος no 
slave is bad, in order to be judged worthy, — ἵνα is not used for ὡς after an 
intensive (so bad as to be), Lut denotes the design which the slaves’ πονηρία 
might have occasioned see ὃ #3, 10, p.461. These passages are not exactly 
parallel to the above constructions from the N.T., but they exhibit the 
gradual transition to them. The phrase ὅρα ὅπως does not come under 
this head, and the ὅπως also after verbs of beseeching, commanding, etc. 
(Matt. viii. 34; ix. 38; Luke vii.3 ; x. 2; xi.37; Acts xxv.3; Philem. 6, 
etc.), which is not uncommon in Greek authors (Schaef. Demosth. ITI. 
416; Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 439; Holwerda, emendatt. Flav. p. 96 sq.), 

303 is usually otherwise explained, Mtth. 1231; Rost S. 648. Yet see Titt- 

6th οἱ, mann, Synon. II. 59. 

Further, John’s use of ἵνα (cf. Liicke I. 603, II. 632 f,, 667 f.) deserves 
special attention; in particular where ἵνα refers complementally to a 
demonstrative pronoun. ‘Two cases are to be distinguished : 

855 4. 1 Jno. iii. 11 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγγελία, ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν that we should love, 
vs. 23, cf. vi. 40. Here the telic force of ἵνα is clearly discernible (in the 
manner stated above p. 994 54.), as in iv. 34 ἐμὸν βρῶμά ἐστιν ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ 
θέλημα rod πέμψαντος that I may do (strive to do), vi. 29. In these 
passages nobody will consider ἵνα as equivalent to ὅτι. On the other hand, 

b. Ino. xv. 8 ἐν τούτῳ ἐδοξάσθη ὁ πατήρ pov, ἵνα καρπὸν πολὺν φέρητε is 
certainly equivalent to the construction with the Inf. (ἐν τῷ καρπὸν πολὺν 

418 φέρειν ὑμᾶς). The same applies to xvii. ὃ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή, iva 

th αἰ. γινώσκωσιν οἰο..} xv. 13; 1 Jno. iv. 175 8 Jno. 4; like Luke i. 48 πόθεν μοι 
τοῦτο, ἵνα ἔλθῃ for τὸ ἐλθεῖν τὴν p. see p. 837. To these may be added the 


1 Schweigh. is wrong in adducing in his Lexic. Epictet. p. 356 the passage from 
Arrian. Epict. 2, 1, 1 as an instance of ¢iis construction. 


oo 


§44, THE INFINITIVE. 339 


phrase χρείαν ἔχειν ἵνα Jno. ii. 25 ; xvi. 30; 1 Jno. ii. 27 (Ev. apocr. p. 111) 
as well as Jno. xviii. 89. On the other hand, viii. 56 ἠγαλλιάσατο iva ἴδῃ 
is not he rejoiced in order to see; yet still less is it that (ὅτι) he saw, but 
that he should see ;— a thought which, although ἵνα implies the idea of 
purpose (design), could hardly have been expressed in Greek by means 
of ἵνα alone. In Jno. xi. 15 ἵνα is simply a particle of design. 

Finally, the construction ἔρχεται or ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα, ἵνα δοξασθῇ xii. 23 ; 
xiii. 1; xvi. 2, 82 means: the time ts come in order to, that is, the time 
appointed for the purpose, that etc. True, in a Greek author‘in the same 
sense the Inf. ἐλήλ. ἡ ὥρα (τοῦ) δοξασθῆναι, perhaps ὥςτε δοξ., would have 
been employed!’ Cf. Ev. apocr. p. 127. 

As to Rom. ix. 6 οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι ἐκπέπτωκεν ὃ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, where a 


_ clause with ὅτι seems to be used as a periphrasis for the Inf, see ὃ 64, I. 6. 


Note 1. It sometimes appears as if the Inf. Act. were used for the Inf. 
Pass. (d’Orville, Charit. p. 526) e.g. 1 Thess. iv. 9 περὶ τῆς φιλαδελφίας οὐ 
χρείαν ἔχετε γράφειν ὑμῖν (Heb. v. 12), but v. 1 οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε ὑμῖν 
γράφεσθαι; cf. also Heb. vi. 6. Both constructions, however, are equally 
proper, (Active, ye have no need to write to you, that is, that I (one) write 
to you; as if: ye have no need of one’s writing ete.). In such connections 
the Inf. Act. is perhaps even more frequent in classical Greek; see 
Elmsley, Eurip. Heracl. p. 151 Lips.; Jacobs, Philostr. Imagg. 620, also 
as respects χρὴ and δεῖ in particular, Weber, Demosth. 306. Cf. especially 
Theodoret. 11. 1528; IV. 566. 

Note 2. Ὅτι occurs with the Inf. in Acts xxvii. 10 θεωρῶ ὅτι μετὰ πολλῆς 
ζημίας οὐ μόνον τ. φορτίου καὶ τ. πλοίου, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῶν μέλλειν 
ἔσεσθαι τὸν πλοῦν (cf. Xen. Hell. 2, 2, 2 εἰδώς, ὅτι, ὅσῳ ἂν πλείους συλλεγῶσιν 904 
ἐς τὸ ἄστυ, θᾶττον τῶν ἐπιτηδείων ἔνδειαν ἔσεσθαι, Cyr. 1, 6,18; 2, 4, 15; ὑἱ οὐ. 
An. 8,1, 9; Plato, Phaed. 68 ς.; Thue. 4, 37), which is a blending of two 856 
constructions (Hm. Vig. 500): μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι τὸν πλοῦν and ὅτι μέλλει 
ἔσεσθαι ὃ πλοῦς. So especially after verbs sentiendi and dicendi, Schaef. 
ad Bast. ep. crit. p. 36; Ast, Plat. legg. p. 479; Wyttenb. Plutarch. Moral. 

J. 54; Boissonade, Philostr. 284 and Aen. Gaz. p. 230; Fritzsche, quaest. 
Lucian. p. 172. sq. This so frequently occurs in the best authors (even 
in short sentences, Arrian. Al. 6, 26, 10), that it almost ceased to be felt 
by the Greeks as an anacoluthon, and to the ὅτε may be attributed merely 
a vis monstrandi, as when it introduces the oratio directa, cf. Klotz, Devar. 319 
p- 692. (Similarly ἵνα with the Inf. 3 Esr. vi. 31.) Tih ed, 

Note 3. A trace of the Hebrew Inf. Absol. presents itself from the 
Sept. in Matt. xv. 4 θανάτῳ τελευτάτω (Exod. xix. 12; Num. xxvi. 65), 
and in the diction of the N. T. itself in Rev. ii. 23 ἀποκτενῶ ἐν θανάτῳ (cf 
mya mi), and Luke xxii. 15 ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα ete. So frequently in the 


1The Subjunctive excludes the possibility of taking ἵνα in these cases for where 
(Hoogev. partic. 1. 535 sq.); 48, otherwise, it would be necessary to regard the Subj. Aor. 
as exactly equivalent to the Fut. (Zob. Phryn. 723). Yet see Tittmann, Synon. II. 49 sq. 


340 8 45, THE PARTICIPLE. 


Sept. the Inf. Absol. is expressed by the Ablative of a nomen conjugat. 
annexed to a verb, in a manner not altogether foreign to the Greek idiom 
(δ 54, 3), as in Gen. x1. 15; xiii. 2; 1.24; Exod. iii.16; xi.1; xviii. 18; 
xxi. 20; xxii. 16; xxiii. 24; Lev. xix. 20; Num. xxii. 30; Deut. xxiv. 15; 
Zeph. i. 2; Ruth ii. 11; Judith vi. 4 (test. patr. p. 634). See, in general, 


Thiersch p.169sq- How in still other passages the Sept. expresses the 
Inf. Absol., see below, § 45, 8, p. 354, 


Note 4. There is nothing singular in a concurrence of several Infinitives 
in a single sentence, one depending on another, somewhat as in 2 Pet. 
i. 15 σπουδάσω ἑκάστοτε ἔχειν ὑμᾶς... τὴν τούτων μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι. 
In Greek authors three Infinitives not unfrequently occur thus in im- 
mediate succession; Weber, Demosth. 351. 


§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE. 


1. The verbal character of the Participle appears, partly in its 
directly governing the same case as its verb (Luke ix. 16 λαβὼν 
tous ἄρτους, 1 Cor. xv. 57 τῷ διδόντι ἡμῖν τὸ νῖκος, Luke viii. 8 
ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐταῖς, 2 Cor. i. 23 φειδόμενος ὑμῶν οὐκ ἦλθον, 
1 Cor. vii. 81 ; Heb. ii. 3; Luke xxi. 4 ; ix. 32, etc.) ; partly in its 
regularly retaining the element of éime, which can be done more 

357 completely in Greek than in Latin and German on account of its 
copiousness in participial forms. The temporal force of the parti- 
ciples corresponds, moreover, to the observations made in § 40 upon 
the separate tenses. 

The simple and ordinary use of the Participle is exemplified, 

a. of the Present, in Acts xx. 23 τὸ πνεῦμα διαμαρτύρεταί μοι 
λέγον etc., Rom. viii. 24 ἐλπὶς βχεπομένη οὐκ ἔστιν ἐλπίς, 1 Thess. 
ii. 4 θεῷ τῷ δοκιμαζοντι τὰς καρδίας, 1 Pet. 1. T χρυσίου τοῦ ἀπολλυ- 
μένου, Heb. vii. 8 —something now present or uniformly occurring 
at all times (Schoem. Plut. Agid. p. 153; Schaef. Plut. V. 211 sq.). 

Ὁ. of the Aorist, in Col. ii. 12 tod θεοῦ τοῦ ἐγείραντος Χριστὸν 

305 ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, Rom.v.16 δ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος (something that 

6th ol. occurred once by itself), Acts ix. 21. 

ὁ. of the Perfect, in Acts xxii. 3 ἀνὴρ γεγεννημένος ἐν Ταρσῷ, ava- 
τεθραμμένος δὲ ἐν TH πόλει ταύτῃ (past facts still operative), Jno. 
xix. 85 ὁ ἑωρακὼς μεμαρτύρηκεν, Matt. xxvii. 37 ἐπέθηκαν -.. τὴν 
αἰτίαν αὐτοῦ γεγραμμένην, Acts xxiii. 3; 1 Pet. i. 28 ; 2 Pet. ii. 6; 
Jno. v. 10; vii. 15; Eph. iii. 18. 

d. of the Future (rare in the N. T.) in 1 Cor. xv. 37 οὐ τὸ σῶμα 

ad τὸ γενησόμενον σπείρεις, Viewed from the past, Heb. iii. ὃ ἱΜωὺῦσῆς 


§ 45, THE PARTICIPLE. 341 


πιστὸς ... ὡς θεράπων εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν λαληθησομένων of those 
things which were to be spoken (revealed) ; cf. Acts viii. 27; xxiv. 11; 


Luke xxii. 49. 


Moreover, the Present Participle is used a) for the Imperf. in 
connection with a past tense; as, Acts xxv. ὃ παρεκάλουν αὐτὸν 
αἰτούμενοι χάριν, Rev. xv. 1 εἶδον ἀγγέλους ἑπτὰ ἔχοντας πληγάώς, 
Heb. xi. 21 ᾿Ιακὼβ ἀποθνήσκων ... ηὐλόγησεν, Acts vii. 26 ὥφθη 
αὐτοῖς μαχομένοις, xviii. 5; xx. 9; xxi. 16; 1 Pet. ii, 23; 2 Cor. 
iii. 7 (Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 264) ; also of a continued state of 
things, Acts xix. 24; 1 Pet. iii. 5. b) of that which will imme- 
diately or infallibly occur ; as, Matt. xvi. 28 τὸ αἷμα τὸ περὶ πολλῶν 


᾿ ἐκχυνόμενον, Vi. 30 τὸν χόρτον αὔριον εἰς κλίβανον βαλλόμενον, 1 Cor. 


xv. 57; Jas. ν. 1. Accordingly, ὁ ἐρχόμενος used of the Messiah, 
xan, is not venturus, but he that cometh (the coming one), he of 
whom it is firmly believed that he is coming, Matt. xi. 3; Luke 
vii. 19, ete. 

Likewise ὦν, joined to a Preterite or an adverb of time, is not un- 
frequently an Imperfect Participle; as, Jno. 1.49; v.13; xi. 31, 49; 
xxi. 11; Acts vii. 2; xi. 1; xviii, 24, 1 Cor.i. 28; 2 C. viii. 9; Eph. ii. 13 
νυνὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ὑμεῖς of ποτε ὄντες etc. Col. i. 21; 1 Tim. i. 13 μὲ 
τὸ πρότερον ὄντα βλάσφημον. Cf. Aristot. rhet. 2, 10,13, πρὸς τοὺς 
μυριοστὸν ὄντας, Lucian. dial. mar. 18, 2 ὀψὲ ζηλοτυπεῖς ὑπερόπτης πρότερον 358 
ὦν. But in Jno. iii. 13 ὧν (see Liicke and BCrus. in loc.) means: who 
(essentially) is in heaven, who belongs to heaven.’ The same applies to 
i. 18. But ix. 25 dre τυφλὸς ὧν ἄρτι βλέπω is probably: I being blind 
(from my infancy), a blind man ; only in so far as a reference to a previous 
condition is included in ἄρτι, can it perhaps also be translated, whereas I 
was. An undoubted Present occurs in 1 Cor. ix. 19 ἐλεύθερος ὧν ἐκ πάντων 
πᾶσιν ἐμαυτὸν ἐδούλωσα being free (though I am free), I made myself 
servant (the Apostle’s ἐλευθερία was something permanent). On the other 
hand, in Rev. vii. 2 εἶδον. . ἄγγελον ἀναβαίνοντα (which Eichhorn strangely 
enough declared to be a solecism) 7 saw him ascend (while he was ascend- 
ing) an Imperf. Part. is quite appropriate, as denoting something not at 
the moment completed. But in xiv. 13 ἀποθνήσκοντες can only be the 
Present Part. 

In many passages formerly the Present Part. was improperly taken for 


the Future, in most of which the force of the Present is quite sufficient : 306 
in connection, Gth ed, 


1°O ὧν ἐν τῷ οὐρ., in the signification of qui erat in coelo, would nearly coincide in 
sense with 6 ἐκ τοῦ obp. καταβάς. It must here, however, denote something special and 
more emphatic, and a climax in these predicates is not to be overlooked. Yet 6 ὥν 
does not form a third predicate co-ordinate with the two others, but is, as Liicke cor- 
rectly observes, explanatory of the predicate 6 υἱὸς τοῦ ἄνθρ. 


842 § 45. THE PARTICIPLE. 


a. with a Pres. or Imperat., as Rom. xv. 25 πορεύομαι διακονῶν τοῖς 
ἁγίοις (the διακονεῖν begins simultaneously with the journey), 1 Pet. i. 9 
ἀγαλλιᾶσθε ... κομιζόμενοι as receiving (they are so already in the assurance 
of faith), Jas. ii. 9. As to 2 Pet. ii. 9 see Huther. 

b. with an Aor. (Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 234), as 2 Pet. ii. 4 παρέδωκεν εἰς 
321 κρίσιν τηρουμένους as those who are kept (contemplated from a present point 
Ith el. of view), Acts xxi. 2 εὑρόντες πλοῖον διαπερῶν εἰς Φοινίκην on her passage 

to, bound for (Xen. Eph. 3, 6 in.), Luke ii. 45 ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς ‘Iepove. ἀνα- 
ζητοῦντες αὐτόν seeking him (which began already on the way back), Mark 
viii. 11; x. 2 (Fut. Part. in reference to an action only purposed, Acts 
xxiv. 17; xxv. 19). 

c. with a Perf., as Acts xv. 27 ἀπεστάλκαμεν Ἰούδαν καὶ Σίλαν... 
ἀπαγγέλλοντας τὰ αὐτά announcing, with the announcement (they assumed 
the character of announcers simultaneously with their entrance on their 
journey), 1 Cor. ii. 1; Demosth. Dionys. 739¢.; Pol. 28,10, 7. In2 Pet. 
iii. 11 τούτων πάντων λυομένων means, since all these things are dissolving, 
that is, are by their nature destined for dissolution ; the doom of dissolution 
is already as it were inherent in them. Λυθησομένων would express only 
mere futurity: as their dissolution will at some time take place. The 
Apostolic (Pauline) terms of ἀπολλύμενοι, οἱ σωζόμενοι (subst.) denote : 

859 those who are perishing, those who are becoming saved etc., not merely at 
some future time but already, inasmuch as they refused to believe and 
therefore are the prey of eternal death. As to Acts xxi. 3, see no. 5. 

ἃ. with a Conjunct. exhortat., as Heb. xiii. 13 ἐξερχώμεθα .... τὸν ὀνειδισμὸν 
αὐτοῦ φέροντες, where the bearing etc. is annexed directly to the éfepy., 
whereas the Fut. Part. would have removed it to some indefinite and 
distant time. Cf. also 1 Cor. 1v. 14. 

Still less can the Pres. Part. take the place of the Aorist. In 2 Cor. x. 14 
od yap ὡς μὴ ἐφικνούμενοι εἰς ὑμᾶς ὑπερεκτείνομεν ἑαυτούς means: as though 
we reached not unto you (which, however, is the case). In 2 Pet. ii. 18 
ἀποφεύγοντας, which Lchm. has already adopted, denotes that the escaping 
has only just begun; such persons are most liable to be misled. As to 
Eph. ii. 21 and iv. 22, see Meyer. 


The Aorist’ Part., in the course of a narration, expresses either 
a simultaneous action (Krii. 155), Acts i. 24 προςευξάμενοι εἶπον 
praying they said (the prayer follows), Rom. iv. 20; Eph. i. 9; 
Col. ii. 13; Phil. ii. 7; 2 Pet. ii. 5; or a previously past action, 
where we should expect the Plup., Matt. xxii. 25 ὁ πρῶτος γαμήσας 
ἐτελεύτησε, Acts v. 10; xiii. 51; 2 Pet. ii. 4; Eph. i. 4 ἢ; ii. 16. 
If the principal verb refers to something future, the Aor. Part. is 
equivalent to the Latin Fut. exact.; as, 1 Pet. ii. 12 wa... ἐκ τῶν 
καλῶν ἔργων ἐποπτεύσαντες δοξάσωσιν τὸν θεόν, ili. 23 Eph. iv. 25 
ἀποθέμενοι τὸ ψεῦδος λαλεῖτε ἀλήθειαν, Marx xiii. 18; Acts xxiv. 25; 


§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE. 343 


Rom. xv. 28; Heb. ἰν. 8; Hm. Vig. 774. Likewise the Perf. Part. 
has sometimes in narration the sense of a Plup.; as, Jno. ii. 9 οἱ 
διάκονοι ἤδεισαν οἱ ἠντληκότες, Acts xviii. 2 εὑρὼν ᾿Ιουδαῖον ... προς- 
φάτως ἐληλυθότα ἀπὸ τ. ᾿Ιταλίας, Heb. ii. 9; Rev. ix. 1. 


The Aor. Part. never stands for the Fut. Part.:—not in Jno. xi. 2 
(where the Evangelist alludes to an event long past, which he narrates 
for the first time in chap. xii.) ; also not in Heb. ii. 10, where ἀγαγόντα 307 
refers to Christ sojourning in the flesh, who even while on earth led many th ed. 
to glory (a work which began wth his very appearance). As to Heb. 322 
ix. 12 see below, 6. It is a misuse of parallel passages to translate Mark ith od. 
xvi. 2 ἀνατείλαντος τοῦ ἡλίου : as the sun rose (so Ebrard still), because 
Jno. xx. 1, cf. Luke xxiv. 1, has σκοτίας ἔτι οὔσης. Such minute discrep- 
ancies in the gospels one must have the courage to tolerate. As to Jno. 
vi. 33, 50 ἄρτος ὁ καταβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, compared with ἄρτος ὃ καταβὰς 
ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ in verses 41, 51, 566 Liicke. Neither is the Aor. Part. used 
for the Perf. Part. in 1 Pet. i. 13. 

The Perf. Pass. Part. κατεγνωσμένος in Gal. ii. 11 is erroneously rendered 360 
reprehendendus. According to grammar and the context it means blamed, 
see Mey. Likewise in Rev. xxi. 8 ἐβδελυγμένος is abominated. On the 
other hand, in Heb. xii. 18 the Pres. Part. ψηλαφώμενον denotes touchable, 
for what ts touched has the property of touchableness, as τὰ βλεπόμενα 
means things visible. Cf. Kritz, Sallust. II. 401 sq. 

Aor. and Perf. Participles are connected and the distinction between 
them maintained: 2 Cor. xii. 21 τῶν προημαρτηκότων x. μὴ μετανοησάντων, 
1 Pet. ii. 10 οἱ οὐκ ἠλεημένοι νῦν δὲ ἐλεηθέντες (Sept.) — the former denoting 
a state, the latter a fact. As tol Jno. v. 18 see Liicke; cf. Ellendt, Arrian. 
Al. I. 129. The connection of the Pres. Part. and the Aor., as in Jno. 
xxi. 24; Heb. vi. 7, 10, or of the Perf. Part. and the Pres., as in Col. ii. 7, 
in a single proposition, hardly requires to be mentioned. 


2. As respects grammatical construction, the Participle is used 
either a. as a complement to the principal clause, as in Matt. 
xix. 22 ἀπῆλθεν λυπούμενος (Rost 701); or Ὁ. it forms for the 
sake of periodic compactness a secondary clause, and can be re- 
solved by a relative or by a conjunction (Rost 703; Mtth. 1311 ff.), 
Jno. xv. 2 πᾶν κλῆμα μὴ φέρον καρπόν which does not bear fruit, 
Rom. xvi. 1 συνίστημι Φοίβην, οὖσαν διάκονον, Luke xvi. 14 ete. ; 
Rom. ii. 27 ἡ ἀκροβυστία τὸν νόμον τελοῦσα if it (thereby, that it) 
Juljils, Acts v. 4 οὐχὶ μένον σοὶ ἔμενε ; when it remained (unsold), 
did it not remain thine? Rom. vii. 3; 2 Pet. i. 4; 1 Tim. iv. 4 
(Xen. M. 1, 4,14; 2, 3,9; Plat. Symp. 208 d.; Schaef. Melet. 
p- 57; Mtth. 1814), Acts iv. 21 ἀπέλυσαν αὐτοὺς μηδὲν εὑρίσκοντες 
etc. because they found nothing, 1 Cor. xi. 29; Heb. vi. 6 (Jude 5; 


344 45. THE PARTICIPLE. 


Jas. ii. 25), Xen. M. 1, 2, 22; Lucian. dial..m. 27,8; Rom. i. 32 
οἵτινες τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπυγνόντες οὐ μόνον ete. though they 
knew etc. (had become well aware), 1 Cor. ix. 19; 1 Thess. ii. 6; 
Jas. ili. 4 ete.; cf. Xen. M.3,10,13; Philostr. Apoll. 2, 25; Lucian. 
dial. m. 26,1. Most frequently in narration the Participle is to 
be resolved by a particle of time; as, 2 Pet. ii. 5 ὄγδοον Νῶε... 
ἐφύλαξεν, κατακλυσμὸν κόσμῳ ἐπάξας, as (when) he brought upon 
the world, Luke ii, 45 μὴ εὑρόντες ὑπέστρεψαν after they had not 
found, Phil. ii.19; Actsiv. 18 καλέσαντες αὐτοὺς παρήγγειλαν, Matt. 
ii. ὃ; Acts xxi. 28 ἐπέβαλον ἐπ᾽. αὐτὸν τὰς χεῖρας κράζοντες while 
they cried etc., Rom. iv. 20 ἐνεδυναμώθη τῇ πίστει δοὺς δόξαν τῷ 
θεῷ ete. ; 


801 When Participles are used limitatively (although), this import is often 

308 indicated by καίτοι or καίπερ prefixed, as in Phil. iii. 4; Heb. iv. 3; v. 8; 

Gthel. vii, 5; 2 Pet. i. 12; cf. Xen. C. 4, 5, 382; Plat. Protag. 318 b.; Diod. 5, 

323 3,7; 17,39. Sometimes this meaning is made prominent by an antithetical 

wet. ὅμως (Krii. 202), 1 Cor. xiv. 7 ὅμως τὰ ἄψυχα φωνὴν διδόντα .,. ἐὰν διαστολὴν 
μὴ δῷ, πῶς γνωσθήσεται τὸ αὐλούμενον etc. things without life, although 
giving out sound, will nevertheless not be understood, unless ete. 

3. The connecting of two or more Participles in different rela- 
tions (co-ordinate or subordinate one to another) without the 
copula καί with one and the same principal verb, is particularly 
frequent in the narrative style. This takes place not only, 

a. When one Participle precedes, and another follows, the finite 
verb, as Luke iv. 35 ῥῆῖψαν αὐτὸ τὸ δαιμόνιον eis μέσον ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ᾽ 
αὐτοῦ, μηδὲν βλάψαν αὐτόν throwing him down (after he had 
thrown him down), the evil spirit came out of him without doing 
him any harm, x. 30; Acts xiv. 19; xv. 24; xvi. 23; Mark vi. 2; 
2Cor. vii.1; Tit. ii.12f.; Heb. vi.6; x.12f.; 2 Pet. ii. 19 (Lucian. 
Philops. 24, and Peregr. 25); but more frequently, 

b. When the Participles immediately follow one another without 
a copula, as Matt. xxviii. 2 ἄγγελος κυρίου κατα βὰς ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, 
προςελθὼν ἀπεκύλισε τὸν λίθον etc., Acts v. 5 ἀκούων ‘Avavias 
τοὺς λόγους τούτους, πεσὼν ἐξέψυξε, Luke ix. 16 λαβὼν τοὺς πέντε 
ἄρτους ..., ἀναβλέψας εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εὐλόγησεν, 1 Cor.»xi. 4 πᾶς 
ἀνὴρ προςευχόμενος ἢ προφητεύων κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων, καταισχύνει 
ete. every man that prayeth or prophesieth with his head covered 
etc.. Luke vii. 37 ἢ; xvi.23; xxiii.48; Acts xiv.14; xxi.2; xxv. 6; 
Mark i.41; v.25-27; viii.6; Col. i. 8 f. εὐχαριστοῦμεν ... mposevxo- 
μενοι ... ἀκούσαντες while we pray,... since (after) we heard, 1 Thess. 
i.2f.; Heb.i.3; xi.7; xii.1; 1 Cor. xv. 58; Jno. xiii.1f.; Col. 


§ 43, THE PARTICIPLE. ; 345 


ii. 13; Phil. ii. 7; Philem: 4; Jude 20, ete. Nothing is more fre- 
quent in Greek authors, cf. Xen. Hell. 1,6,8; Cyr. 4,6,4; Plato, 
rep. 2, 866 ἃ. ; Gorg. 471 b.; Strabo 3,165; Lucian. asin. 18; Alex. 
19; Xen. Eph. 3,5; Alciphr. 3,48 in.; Arrian. Al. 8, 80, 7; 8 

Heindorf, Plat. Protag. p. 562; Hm. Eurip. Io p. 842; Stallb. 
Plat. Phileb. § 32, and Plat. Kuthyphr. p. 27; Apol. p. 46 sq. ; 
Boisson. Aristaenet. p. 257 ; Jacob ad Lucian. Tox. p. 43; Ellendt, 
Arrian. Al. 11. 322, ete. (In several passages sometimes a smaller 
and sometimes a greater number of Codd. have the copula καί, as 

in Acts ix. 40; Mark xiv. 22, etc.) 


The Participles stand otherwise related to each other in Luke ii. 12 
εὑρήσετε βρέφος ἐσπαργανωμένον κείμενον ev φάτνῃ ye shall find a child 362 
swaddled, lying in a manger, where the first Part. takes the place of an 
adjective. 


4, When the Participle is employed merely as a complement or 
predicate, it fills sometimes the office discharged in Latin and Ger- 
man by the Inf. (Rost 694 ff), viz. in the well-known phrases: 

ἃ. Acts v. 42 οὐκ ἐπαύοντο διδάσκοντες (xiii. 10; Heb. x.2; Rev. 
iv. 8), Acts xii. 16 ἐπέμενε κρούων, Luke vii. 45 (2 Mace. v. 27), 

2 Pet. i. 19 ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτε προςέχοντες, Acts x. 83; xv. 29; Phil. 
iv.14; 3Jno.6 (Plato, symp. 174e.; Phaed. 60¢.; Her. 5, 24, 26), 309 
2 Pet. ii.10; 2Thess. iii.13; Ὁ. Mark xvi. 5 εἶδον νεανίσκον καθήμενον, "eh 
Acts ii. 11 ἀκούομεν er ert αὐτῶν, νἱϊ. 12; Mark xiv. 58. Logi- μὴν fe 
cally, the Participle is in these instances as appropriate, at least, 

as the Infinitive; the Greeks used the former to mark a nice 
distinction which other nations failed to note. Οὐκ ἐπαύοντο 
διδάσκοντες is, teaching (or, as teachers) they did not cease ;1 εἶδον 
καθήμενον they saw him (as one) sitting. The Part. denotes an 
action or a state already existing, not first occasioned or produced 

by the principal verb; see, in general, Mtth. 1228; Krii. 191 ff2 

We further specify the following instances as of less frequent 
occurrence: Under ἃ. 1 Cor. xiv. 18 εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ πάντων 
ὑμῶν μᾶλλον γλώσσαις λαλῶν (rec.)* that 1 speak (as one... 


1 It would make no essential difference to regard this use of the Part. in the nomina- 
tive, with G. T. A. Kriiger (Untersuch. aus dem Gebiete der lat. Sprachl. III. 356 ff., 
404 ff.), as attraction. Further, cf. Hm. emend. rat. p. 146 f. 

? More precise distinctions on this head as to Greek are laid down by Weller, Bemer- 
kungen zur gr. Syntax. Meiningen, 1845. 4to. 

8 Lehm. and Tdf. on the authority of many uncial Codd. [Sin. ἀραὶ give λαλῶ; 
then we have two unconnected clauses side by side: I thank God, I speak more than you 
all (for that I speak more than you all), cf. Bornem. Xen. cony. p- 71. The Cod. Alex. 
omits both λαλῶν and λαλῶ. 

44 


846 45. THE PARTICIPLE. 


speaking), cf. Her. 9,79; Acts xvi. 34 ἠγαλλιάσωτο πεπιστευκὼς 
τῷ θεῷ (Eurip. Hipp. 8; Soph. Phil. 882; Lucian. paras. 3; fug. 
12; Dion. H. IV. 2238) ; but Rom. vii. 13 does not come under 
this head, see Riick. cf. Heusing. Plut. paedag. p. 19; Under b. 
Luke viii. 46 ἐγὼ ἔγνων δύναμιν ἐξεληλυθυῖαν (Thue. 1, 25 
γνόντες ... οὐδεμίαν σφίσιν ἀπὸ Κερκύρας τιμωρίαν οὗσαν, Xen. 


Ο.1, 4, 7, see Monk, Eurip. Hipp. 304 and Alcest. 152),1 Heb. 


363 xiii. 23 γινώσκετε τὸν ἀδελφὸν Τιμόθεον ἀπολελυμένον ye know 


that ...%s set at liberty, Acts xxiv. 10 ἐκ πολχῶν ἐτῶν ὄντα σε 
κριτὴν τῷ ἔθνει τούτῳ ἐπιστάμενος, cf. Demosth. ep. 4 p..123 ete. 
(but in Luke iv. 41 ἤδεισαν τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι, where also 
in Greek prose the Participle would probably have been employed, 
ef. Mehlhorn in Allg. L. Z. 1833, no. 110, yet see Elmsley, Eurip. 
Med. 580), 2 Jno. 7 οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες Χριστὸν ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν 
κόσμον, 1 Jno. iv. 2 πνεῦμα ὃ ὁμολογεῖ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ 
ἐληλυθότα.3 As to verbs dicendi with a Part. see Mtth. 1289; 


310 Jacobs, Aelian. anim. 11.109. In Greek prose the verb αἰσχύνεσθαι 


6th ed. 


τὰ 


also is especially so used, e.g. Xen. C. 3, 2, 10 αἰσχυνοίμεθ᾽ ἄν σοι 


shai μὴ atrodvdovtes, 5,1, 21 αἰσχύνομαι λέγων, Mem. 2, 6,39; Diog. 


L. 6, 8; Liban. oratt. p. 525b. Yet just here we see with what 
propriety the Participle is chosen in the cases just noted. For this 
verb is also construed in Greek authors with the Inf. But there 
is an essential difference between the two constructions; see Poppo, 
Xen. Cyr. p. 286 sq. The Part. is used only when a person is now 
doing (or has done) something of which he (at the moment of 
acting) is ashamed; but the Inf., when shame in view of something 
to be done (but not yet actually performed) is to be expressed 
(cf. e.g. Isocr. ad Philipp. p. 224, and big. p. 842; Xen. M. 3, 7, 5). 
Luke, observing this distinction, has written correctly xvi. 3 
ἐπαιτεῖν αἰσχύνομαι to beg I am ashamed (Sir. iv. 26; Sus. 11) ; 
had the speaker already begun to beg, ἐπαυτῶν αἰσχύνομαι must 
have been used. "ἄρχομαι is uniformly in the N. T., and commonly 
in Greek authors, construed with the Infin., as he began speaking 
is less appropriate than he continued speaking. Yet see Rost 698. 

1 Eph. iii. 19 γνῶναι τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν τῆς γνώσεως ἀγάπην τοῦ Χριστοῦ cannot 
be referred to this head, as many expositors refer it; for the Part., by its position between 
the article and substantive, is too clearly marked as an adjective. For another reason, 
also, Phil. ii. 28 ἵνα ἰδόντες αὐτὸν πάλιν χαρῆτε must not be referred to the above 
construction. The sense is: that ye, beholding him, may again rejoice. 

2 The passage of Isocr. Paneg. ὁ. 8, usually adduced as a parallel (even still by Mith. 
1289), was corrected by Hier. Wolf, cf. Baiter in loc. Weber, Demosth. p. 278, discusses 


another matter. 
8 With πυνθάνομαι both constructions coincide ; see Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 145. 


§ 45, THE PARTICIPLE. 347 


*Axovew, which also. is occasionally construed with a predicative Part., 
and that not merely in the literal sense of immediate hearing as in Rev. 

y. 18; Acts ii. 11, but also in that of learning, being informed (through 
others) as in Luke iv. 23; Acts vii. 12; 2 Thess. iii. 11 ἀκούομέν twas 
περιπατοῦντας etc., ὃ Ino. 4 (Xen. C. 2, 4, 12),! is in the latter sense fre- 364 
quently construed with ὅτι, once [by Paul] with the Acc. with the Inf, 

1 Cor. xi. 18 ἀκούω σχίσματα ἐν ὑμῖν ὑπάρχειν (ὑπάρχοντα), [once also by 
John, xii. 18 ἤκουσαν τοῦτο αὐτὸν πεποιηκέναι τὸ σημεῖον] ; cf. Xen. C. 1, 
8,1; 4,16. The construction is different in Eph. iv. 22 if ἀποθέσθαι 
ὑμᾶς ... τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον depends on ἠκούσατε or ἐδιδάχθητε in vs. 21 
(that ye must put off); see ὃ 44, 3, p. 322. 

The use of the Part. examined in this section is in Greek authors, even 

prose writers, much more diversified than in the N. T. (see Jacobs, Anthol. 
III. 235, and Achill. Tat. p. 828; Ast, Plat. Polit. p.500; Schaef. Eurip. 
Hee. p. 81). The construction of παύεσθαι with the Inf. is disapproved 
even by ancient grammarians, though erroneously, see Schaef. Apoll. Rhod. 
II. 223 ; Ast, Theophr. char. p. 223 sq. 

Also in 1 Tim. νυ. 13 ἅμα δὲ καὶ dpyai μανθάνουσι περιερχόμεναι the 
Part. is by nearly all recent expositors thought to be used for the Inf. : 
they learn (accustom themselves) (to be) going about idle ete. This gives 
a suitable meaning. But in all cases where the Part. joined to μανθάνειν 
refers to the subject, that verb signifies to perceive, comprehend, observe, 
remark something which is already ex:siing, as in Her. 3, 1 διαβεβλημένος 
ὑπὸ ᾿Αμάσιος οὐ μανθάνεις (see Valcken. in loc.), Soph. Antig. 532; Aesch. 
Prom. 62; Thue. 6, 39; Plut. paed. 8,12; Dion. Π. IV. 2238; Lucian. 326 
dial. ἃ. 16, 2;? but in the sense of learn it is used with the Inf., Phil. iv. 11 Tth ed 
also 1 Tim. ν. 4;* Mtth. 1228. The preceding construction, then, must 311 
have been incorrectly extended beyond the proper bounds. Perhaps, -ν 
however, μανθ. is to be connected with ἀργαΐ, and περιερχόμεναι to be taken 
as a proper Part. (they learn idleness, going about etc.). ᾿Αργαὶ μ. would 
then be a concise expression, like what sometimes occurs elsewhere also 
with an adjective (Plat. Euthyd. 276 b. of ἀμαθεῖς ἄρα σοφοὶ μανθάνουσιν, 
and more frequently διδάσκειν τινὰ σοφόν), which does not like the Part. 
include the notion of tense or mood. This exposition, which Beza, 
Piscator, and others adopted and which Huther has recently approved, is 
supported by this, that in the sequel ἀργαί is repeated as the leading word, 
and to the climax φλύαροι καὶ περίεργοι a Part. is likewise annexed, λαλοῦσαι 
τὰ μὴ δέοντα. 

1 Cf. Rost, in his griech. Worterb. I. 143. 

2 In Xen. C. 6, 2, 29 ἕως ἂν μάθωμεν ὑδροπόται γενόμενοι (a passage which would not 
be altogether decisive), λάθωμεν was long ago substituted for μάθωμεν. 

3 Matthies has passed over the grammatical difficulty in silence. Leo, after Casaubon. 
ad Athen. p. 452, would render μανθάνουσι by solent ; but he has not observed that this 
meaning belongs only to the Preterite. 


4 Under this head comes also Dio Chr. 55, 558 6 Swxpdrns ὅτι μὲν παῖς dy ἐμάνθανε 
λιθοξόος Thy τοῦ πατρὸς τέχνην, ἀκηκόαμεν (Socrates learned as stone-cutter etc.). 


848 § 45, THE PARTICIPLE. 


A verb of the kind specified under a. is once construed with an Adjec- 

tive —which cannot be thought strange, Acts xxvii. 33 τεσσαρεςκαιδεκάτην 

865 σήμερον mires προςδοκῶντες, ἄσιτοι (ὄντες) διατελεῖτε, cf. Xen. C. 1, 
5, 10 ἀναγώνιστος διατελεῖ, Hell. 2, 3, 25. 

Some erroneously think the Part. used for the Inf. in 1 Tim. i. 12 πιστόν 
με ἡγήσατο θέμενος εἰς διακονίαν. The meaning is: he counted me faith- 
Sul, in that he appointed me to the ministry (by that very act showing that 
he counted me faithful). In another sense, indeed, θέσθαι εἰς διακονίαν 
might also have been employed. 


5. Present participles are frequently used (in the narrative 
style) with the verb εἶναι, and in particular with ἦν or ἦσαν (yet 
also with the Fut.) : — sometimes, as it seems, simply for the cor- 
responding person of their finite verb (Aristot. metaph. 4, 7; 
Bhdy,. 834),! as in Mark xiii. 25 οἱ ἀστέρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἔσονται 
πίπτοντες (where immediately follows, as a parallel clause, καὶ 
ai δυνάμεις ai ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς σαλευθήσονται, --- Matt. has πεσοῦνται). 

— Φ668.1. 17 πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον ἄνωθέν ἐστι καταβαῖνον etc., Luke γ. 1: 
Acts ii. 2; sometimes, and indeed more frequently, to express con- 
tinuance (rather a state than an act),? which might also be indi- 
cated, though less sensibly in reference to the past, by the form of 

327 the Imperfect? (cf. Beza ad Matt. vii. 29), as Mark xv. 43 ἦν προς- 

ithel. δεχόμενος τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ (Luke xxiii. 51), Acts viii. 28 ἣν 
τε ὑποστρέφων καὶ καθήμενος ἐπὶ Tod ἅρματος αὑτοῦ (an Imperf. 

812. immediately follows), i. 10 ; ii. 42; viii. 18; x. 24; Matt. vii. 29; 

δὲ οἱ, Mark ix.4; xiv.54; Luke iv. 31; v.10; vi.12; xxiv. 13. Adie 
this construction is used especially where there isa reference to 
some other circumstance, as in Luke xxiv. 32 ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν καιο- 
μένη ἦν ἐν ἡμῖν ὡς ἐλάλει etc., or to what is customary, as in Mark 
ii. 18 ἦσαν of μαθηταὶ ᾿Ιωάννου ... νηστεύοντες (they used to fast), 
to which exposition Mey. without reason objects. Also in Luke 
xxi. 24 “Ιερουσαλὴμ ἔσται πατουμένη ὑπὸ ἐθνῶν duration seems 
intended to be expressed, while the two Futures preceding, πεσοῦν- 
Tat and αἰχμαλωτισθήσονται, denote transient occurrences, ef. Matt. 
xxiv. 9. In other passages εἶναι is not the mere auxiliary verb: 
Mark x. 32 ἦσαν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ἀναβαίνοντες εἰς “Iepoo. they were to 
be on the road (cf. vs. 17), going up to Jerusalem (Lucian. 


1 In some tenses (as the Perf. and Plup. Pass. Plur.) this circumlocution, as is well 
known, has become predominant and figures in the paradigm of the verb. 

? What Stallb. Plat. rep. II. 34 says of the distinction between this construction and 
the finite verb amounts to this. 

8 It is a characteristic of popular diction to expand concise expressions for the suke 
of greater clearness or force; see § 44, 3, p. 324. 


§ 45, THE PARTICIPLE. 949 


dial. mar. 6, 2), v. 5,44-CHm. Soph. Philoct. p. 219) ii.6; Luke 366 
ii. 8; xxiv. 53; Mark xiv. 4 ἦσάν τινες ἀγανακτοῦντες there were 
some (present) who had indignation; or the Part. has assumed 
rather the nature of an adjective, as in Matt. xix. 22 ἦν ἔχων 
κτήματα he was possessed of property, ix. 36; Luke i. 20 (ef. Stallb. 
Plat. rep. 11. 34). Perhaps also the verbal idea was sometimes 
dissected into a Part. and Subst. verb in order to give it in the 
form of a noun more prominence (αν. 204), 2 Cor. v. 19 (see 
Mey.),1 Cor. xiv. 9; Col. ii. 23. In Luke vii. 8 ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι 
ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν τασσόμενος the Part. appears to be not directly de- 
pendent on εἶναι, but an epithet belonging to a substantive, In 
Jno. i. 9 jv... ἐρχόμενον are not to be taken together, but ἐρχό- 
μενον belongs as an attributive to ἄνθρωπον, see Meyer. Moreover, 
this use of the Pres. Part. is not uncommon in Greek authors ; 
and they (particularly Herodot.) employ thus the other Participles 
also besides the Pres., ef. Surip. Here. fur. 312 sq. εἰ μὲν σθενόντων 
τῶν ἐμῶν βραχιόνων ἦν τις σ᾽ ὑβρίζων, Her. 3,99 ἀπαρνεόμενός 
ἐστιν, Xen. An. 2, 2,13 ἦν ἡ στατηγία οὐδὲν ἄλλο δυναμένη, Herod. 
1, 8, 12 κρατήσας ἦν τοῖς ὅπλοις (where προςηγάγετο precedes), 
Lucian. eunuch. 2 δικασταὶ ψηφοφοροῦντες ἦσαν οἱ ἄριστοι. See 
Reiz, Lucian. VI. 537 Lehm.; Couriers, Lucian. asin. p. 219; 
Jacob, quaest. Lucian. p. 12; Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 597; Boisson. 
Philostr. 660, and Nicet. p. 81; Mtth. 1302. In later writers (e.g. 
Agath. 126, 7; 135, δ; 175,14; 279, 7 etc., Ephraem. see Index 
under εἶναι.) and in the Sept. it occurs much more frequently, 
though in the Sept. the Hebrew seldom gave oceasion to this con- 
struction. -On the other hand, the circumlocution of the Part. 
and to be for the finite verb became established, as is well known, 
in Aramaean; and so in Palestinean authors a national predilection 328 
for the above construction y have prevailed. Th ol, 


Acts xxi. 3 ἐκεῖσε ἦν τὸ ioprilouevov τὸν γόμον cannot be 
rendered, with Grotius, Valckender’ 2 hers: eo navis merces expositura 
erat, but means: thither the vessel was unlading its eargo i.e. in the nar- 
rative style: thither it was going in order to unload, (to take ἐκεῖσε for 
éxet — cf. Bornem. Schol. p. 176— is unnecessary). That the phrase jv 
arog. refers to what the ship was just then freighted with is not to be 313 
overlooked. 6th ed, 

In Luke iii. 23 ἦν... ἀρχόμενος are not to be joined together, but ἦν 
ἐτῶν τριάκοντα forms the principal predicate, and ἀρχόμενος is annexed as 
a closer limitation. The idiom mentioned in Vig. p. 355 is not similar. 

Of one who is entering on his thirtieth year it cannot be said: he is begin- 
ning thirty years ; he is, rather, on the point of terminating thirty years. 






350 § 45. THE PARTICIPLE. 


367 In Jas. iii. 15 οὐκ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ σοφία ἄνωθεν κατερχομένη ἀλλ᾽ ἐπίγειος, ψυχική 
etc. the Part. is employed adjectively, and ἔστιν belongs likewise to the 
adjectives following ; cf. Franke, Demosth. p. 42. 

Ὑπάρχειν with the Part. in Acts viii. 16 μόνον βεβαπτισμένοι ὑπῆρχον εἰς 
τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ, is not a mere circumlocution for the finite verb, 
for βεβαπτ. ἦσαν would be the regular expression, there being no other 
form for the Plup. In Jas. ii. 15 λειπόμενοι is annexed as a predicate to 
γυμνοὶ ὑπάρχωσιν. In part, however, Luke xxiii. 12 προὐπῆρχον ἐν ἔχθρᾳ 
ὄντες might be referred to this head, for which πρότερον ἐν ἔχθρᾳ ἦσαν 
might have been used. See as to these combinations of ὑπάρχειν with the 
Part. ὦν, Bornem. Schol. p. 148. 

Γίνομαι also (in the sense of εἶναι) is never in the N. T. employed with 
a Part. (Heind. Plat. Soph. 273 sq.; Lob. Soph. Aj. v. 588) to form a 
periphrasis of this sort. In Heb. v. 12 γεγόνατε χρείαν ἔχοντες signifies : 
ye have come to have need. In Mark ix. 3 τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἐγένοντο στίλβοντα 
means: became shining. In the same way are to be explained Luke 
xxiv. 37; 2 Cor. vi. 14; Rev. xvi. 10; but in Mark i. 4 ἐγένετο ᾿Ιωάννης 
(exstitit Joannes) is to be taken by itself, and the Participles that follow 
are added as explanatory. Just so Jno. i. 6. 

The construction in the following passages cannot by any means be 
taken as a circumlocution for a finite verb: θεός ἐστὶν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν 
etc. Phil. ii. 13 ; 1 Cor. iv. 4, etc. (usually with the omission of the copula, 
Rom. viii. 33; Heb. iii. 4, etc.) ἐξ is God that worketh etc., cf. Fr. Rom. II. 
212 sq.; Krii. 191. 


6. Greek prose authors seldom take the liberty of omitting the 

Subs. verb in such constructions, so as to make the Part. stand 
exactly for a finite verb ;! and then it is done only in simple tense 
890 and mood forms (see Hm. Vig. 776; Mtth. 1803; Siebelis, Pausan. 
ith ed TIT. 106; Wannowski, synt. anom, 202 sq.).2 Expositors, disregard- 
ing the corrections of Greek philologers (Hm. Vig. 770, 776 sq. ; 
Bremi in the Philol. Beitr. a iz. 1.172 ff. ; Bornem. Xen. 
cony. p. 146 and Schol. in L éderlein, Soph. Oed. Col. 

p- 593sq; Bhdy. 470), have o hesitatingly assumed such 

a usage in the N.T. But in ned¥fy all the passages so explained, 
314 a finite verb either precedes or follows, to which the Part. is to be 
sth el joined (and then merely the usual punctuation of the text must not 
be minded) ; or there is an anacoluthon, owing to the writer’s 









1 Cf. Fr. Rom. I. 282. As to the Byzantine use of Participles simply for finite verbs, 
see Index to Malalas, in the Bonn ed. p. 797. (We are not speaking here of the poets ; 
see e.g. Hm. review of Miiller’s Eumenid. S. 23.) 

2 The restriction under which Mehlhorn in the Allg. Lit. Z. 1833. no. 78 maintains 
this ellipsis, can neither be fully justified on philosophic grounds, nor can instances be 
found, especially in later authors, to support it, 


845. THE PARTICIPLE. 351 


having lost sight of the construction with which he began (Poppo, 
Thue. III. Π]. 188). Several such passages have been correctly 368 
explained by Ostermann in Crenii exercitatt. Il. 522 sq. 

a. In 2 Cor. iv. 13 ἔχοντες must be joined to the πιστεύομεν fol- 
lowing: as we have ... we also believe. In 2 Pet. ii. 1 both ἀρνού- 
μενοι and ἐπάγοντες are to be connected with παρειςάξουσιν ; they 
are not, however, co-ordinate with each other, but ἐπάγοντες is an- 
nexed to the clause oftwes ... ἀρνούμενοι. In Rom. v.11 ἀλλὰ 
καὶ καυχώμενοι has not so close a correspondence to σωθησόμεθα, 
that καυχώμεθα (var.) was to have been expected ; but the meaning 
appears to be but not only shall we be saved (simply and actually), 
but while we, so that we etc. (expressive of the joyous consciousness 
of the saved). In 2 Cor. viii. 20 στελλόμενοι is to be connected, as 
to the sense, with συνεπέμψαμεν in vs. 18. In Heb. vi. 8 ἐκφέ- 
ρουσα does not stand for ἐκφέρει, but this Part. corresponds to 
πιοῦσα and τίκτουσα in vs. 7, and by δέ is placed in opposition 
to both; but an ἐστί is to be supplied with ἀδόκιμος and κατάρας 
ἐγγύς. In 2 Pet. iii. 5 συνεστῶσα is a proper Part. (attributive), 
and the preceding ἦσαν avails also for ἡ γῆ. In Heb. vii. 2 ἑρμη- 
vevopevos must be joined to Meryec. in vs. 1., as ὁ συναντ. and @ 
ἐμέρισεν are parenthetical clauses, and the principal verb in the 
sentence follows all the predicates in vs. 3 μένει ἱερεύς etc. In 
Eph. v. 21 ὑποτασσόμενοι, like the other Participles in vss. 19, 20, 
certainly belongs with the principal verb πληροῦσθε ἐν πν., and is 
not to be taken for an Imperative, as has been done by Koppe, Flatt, 
and others; the ai γυναῖκες etc. in vs. 22 is then joined, without 
a special verb (for ὑποτάσσεσθε is undoubtedly a gloss), to ὑπο- 
τασσόμενοι, as a further illustration. Likewise in 1 Pet. v. 7 the 
Participles are connected with the foregoing Imperative in vs. 6; 
and 1 Pet. iii. 1 refers back jemis here the Part. is to be joined 
to the Imperat. in vs. 17. way in 2 Thess. iii. 8 épya- 
ζόμενοι is to be joined to ἐν μόχθῳ, and this again cor- 
responds to δωρεάν as an adjunct to the verb ἄρτον ἐφάγομεν. In 
Heb. x. 8 λέγων belongs to the verb following in vs. 9, eipnxev. 330 
In x. 16 διδούς may very well be connected with διαθήσομαι. Rom. Τὰ ὦ 
vii 13 has long since been correctly explained. 1 Pet. iv. 8 needs 
no explanation. 

Ὁ. Acts xxiv. 5 begins’ with the Part. εὑρόντες τὸν ἄνδρα, and 
vs. 6 should have continued ἐκρατήσαμεν αὐτόν etc.; instead of 
this the writer annexes this principal verb to the interposed relative 
clause ὃς καὶ... ἐπείρασε. In 2 Pet. i. 17 λαβὼν γὰρ παρὰ θεοῦ 







352 8 45. THE PARTICIPLE. 


ete. the structure is interrupted by the parenthetical clauses φωνῆς 
εὐν εὐδόκησα ; and the apostle continues in vs. 18 with καὶ ταύτην 

369 τὴν φωνὴν ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν, instead of saying, as he intended, ἡμᾶς 
εἶχε ταύτην THY φωνὴν ἀκούσαντας, or something similar (Fr. diss. 

815 in 2 Cor. II. 44). In 2 Cor. v. 6 θαῤῥοῦντες, after several interme- 

δι αἱ. diate clauses, is resumed in θαῤῥοῦμεν δέ vs. 8. In vii. 5 οὐδεμίαν 
ἔσχηκεν ἄνεσιν ἡ σὰρξ ἡμῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντὶ θλιβόμενοι, ἔξωθεν 
μάχαι etc., ἤμεθα (from ἡ σὰρξ ἡ μῶ ν) may be supplied (Hm. Vig. 
Ρ. 770); but an anacoluthon may also be assumed (Fr. as above, 
p- £9), as if Paul had written in the previous part of the sentence 
avdeulay ἄνεσιν ἐσχήκαμεν TH σαρκὶ ἡμῶν. Inv. 12 ἀφορμὴν διδόντες 
must be taken as ἃ Part., but the foregoing clause must be under- 
stood as if it had run οὐ yap γράφομεν ταῦτα πάλιν ἑαυτοὺς curr 
στάνοντες, or, What comes to the same thing, the more general 
λέγομεν, γράφομεν, be deduced from συνιστάνομεν ; see Mey. in loc. 
In 1 Pet. ii. 11 ἀπέχεσθε is the reading now adopted, with which 
in vs. 12 ἔχοντες is regularly connected ; and in Acts xxvi. 20 
ἀπήγγελλον was long ago substituted for ἀπαγγέλλων. As to Rom. 
xii. 6 ff; Heb. viii. 10, and 1 Pet. iii. 1, 7 see § 63. (In Rev. x. 2 
ἔχων is subjoined independently and ἐστί can be supplied.) 


In Rom. iii. 23 too, πάντες ... ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ, δικαιούμενοι 
δωρεάν etc., the Part. cannot stand for a finite verb (even Ostermann 
explains it ὑστεροῦνται καὶ δικαιοῦνται), but the Apostle as his words show 
conceived the connection thus: and come short of the glory of God, in 
that (since) they are justified freely ; the latter is proof of the former. 

In 1 Cor. iii. 19 ὁ δρασσόμενος τοὺς σοφοὺς ἐν τῇ πανουργίᾳ αὐτῶν, a 
quotation from the Old Test., does not form a complete sentence, but 
contains merely the words suited to the Apostle’s purpose, cf. Heb. i. 7. 
What the Apostle quotes incompletely we ought not to wish to complete 
by annexing an ἐστί As to 1 Pet. i. 14, see Fr. Conject. I. 41 sq.; the 
Part. μὴ συσχηματιζόμενοι may be taken as depending on ἐλπίσατε, or, as 

3311 prefer, may be connected with γενήθητέ vs. 15 as parallel to κατὰ τὸν 

Ith ed. καλέσαντα etc. As little reason is there in proverbs, such as 2 Pet. ii. 22 
κύων ἐπιστρέψας ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιον ἐξέραμα and ts λουσαμένη etc., to change the 
Part. into the finite verb. The words run: a dog, that turns to his own 
vomit, as if spoken δεικτικῶς in reference to a case under observation ; just 
as we say in German e.g. ein riiudiges Schaf! (‘a black sheep,’ Eng.) 
when a bad man makes himself conspicuous among the good. 

In another way a Part. was taken for a finite verb, when the Part. 


1 Yet it may also be assumed that Peter wished to say: receiving from God honor and 
glory —he was declared to be the beloved Son of God, but interrupts the construction with 
the direct quotation of the words uttered by the voice from heaven. © 


8 45, THE PARTICIPLE. 853 


seemed to express an action following that denoted by the finite verb 
(Bihr in Creuzer Melet. III. 50sq.). In the N. T., however, there is no 
single established instance of this usage. In Luke iy. 15 ἐδίδασκεν... 370 
δοξαζόμενος ὑπὸ πάντων means: he taught being glorified of all, — while he 

was glorified of all (during his teaching). Jas. ii. 9 εἰ δὲ προςωποληπτεῖτε, 316 
ἁμαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθε ἐλεγχόμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου etc. is: ye commit sin, while tthe « 
(since) ye are convicted, being convicted (as προςωποληπτοῦντες) ; Gebser 

is wrong. In Heb. xi. 35 ἐτυμπανίσθησαν οὐ προςδεξάμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν 

not accepting the deliverance (offered them), προςδεξ. denotes something 
preceding rather than following the τυμπανίζ. ; cf. Heb. ix. 12. Acts 
xix. 29, too, does not contain the use of the Aor. Part. in narration men- 
tioned by Hm. Vig. 774; as ὥρμησάν τε ὁμοθυμαδὸν εἰς τὸ θέατρον, συναρ- 
πάσαντες Τάϊον καὶ ᾿Αρίσταρχον means either, after they had seized along 
with themselves (from their quarters) or, while they seized along with them. 

In Luke i. 9 ἔλαχεν τοῦ θυμιᾶσαι εἰςελθὼν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ κυρίου, the Part. 
probably belongs to the Inf. (as the Vulgate takes it): entering into.the 
temple to burn incense; Mey. is artificial. As to Rom. iii. 23, see above, 

p- 352. Rom. ii. 4 requires no elucidation. Likewise the peculiarity oc- 
casionally found in Greek authors, according to which the principal notion 

is expressed by a Part. and the secondary by a finite verb (Mtth, 1295 f.; 
Hm. Soph. Aj. 172; Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 136), has by some been un- 
warrantably forced upon the N.T.; such critics having quite forgotten 
that the usage in question could not occur independently of any limitation 
involved in the nature of the ideas to be expressed. To explain 2 Cor. 

v. 2 στενάζομεν ... ἐπιποθοῦντες as put for ἐπιποθοῦμεν στενάζοντες is emi- 
nently infelicitous; the Part. must be regarded as subjoined to the verb, 

and explained as causal like στενάζομεν Bapovpevor in vs. 4. 


7. The Present Part. (with the Article) is often used substan- 
tively, and then, as a noun, excludes all indication of time. In 
Eph. iv. 28 ὁ κλέπτων μηκέτι κλεπτέτω is not for ὁ κλέψας (as 
some Codd. have); but, let the stealer i.e. the thief steal no more, 
Heb. xi. 28. So also when it is accompanied with an Acc. of the 
Object, or other adjuncts ; as, Gal. i. 23 ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτέ our 
Sormer persecutor, Matt. xxvii.40 ὁ καταλύων τὸν ναόν the destroyer 
of the temple (in his imagination), Rev. xv. 2 of νικῶντες ἐκ τοῦ 
θηρίου (which Hichhorn, Hinl. N.T. I. 378, mentions as sin gular!), 
xx.10; Gal. ii. 2 (οἱ δοκοῦντες see Kypke II. 274; cf. also Pachym. 332 
I. 117, 188, ete.) ; 1 Thess. 1. 10; v.24; 1 Pet. i. 17; Rom. v. 17; thet 
Jno. xii. 20 (xiii. 11) ; ef. Soph. Antig. 239 οὔτ᾽ εἶδον ὅςτις ἣν ὁ 
δρῶν, Paus. 9, 25, 5 ὁποῖά ἐστιν αὐτοῖς καὶ τῇ μητρὶ τὰ δρώμενα. 
Diog. L. 1, 87 βραδέως ἐγχείρει τοῖς πραττομένοις (faciendis), Soph. 
Electr. 200 ὁ ταῦτα πράσσων, Plat. Cratyl. 416 b. ὁ τὰ ὀνόματα 


τιθείς, Demosth. Theocrin. 508 b. and frequently in the orators 
45 


854 § 45, THE PARTICIPLE. 


ὁ τὸν νόμον τιθείς (legislator), ὁ γράφων τὴν μαρτυρίαν (Bremi, 
Demosth. p. 72) Strabo 15,713; Arrian. ΑἹ. ὅ, 7,12; Poppo, Thue, 

871 I. 1.152; Schaef. Eurip. Orest. p.70; Demosth. V. 120, 127; poet. 
gnom. 228 sq., and Plutarch. V. 211 sq.; Weber, Demosth. 180 ; 
Bornem. Schol. p. 10; Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 22; Maetzner ad 
Antiphont. p. 182. Likewise in Acts iii. 2 οἱ εἰςπορευόμενοι is used 
substantively, those entering; one cannot regard it with Kihnél 

317 (Matt. p. 324), on the ground that μέλλοντας εἰςιέναι occurs in 

sth et. ys, 8, as the Present Part. used for the Fut. The more precise 
expression is quite appropriate in vs. 8, as the person addressing 
the two apostles detained them a short time during their eisvévas. 
(In other passages, when there is a distinct reference to past time, 
the Aorist Part. is used substantively ; as, Jno. v.29; Acts ix. 21; 
2 Cor. vii. 12, etc., ef. ὁ ἐκείνου τεκών Kurip. Electr. 335, οἱ τῶν ἰόντων 
rexovtes Aeschyl. Pers. 245,— Aristoph. eccl. 1126 ἡ ἐμὴ κεκτημένη, 
Lucian. Tim. 56.) 


Such Present Participles with the Article show themselves to be com- 
plete substantives when a Genitive is joined to them, as in 1 Cor. vii. 35 
πρὸς τὸ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν συμφέρον (Demosth. cor. 810 9. τὰ μικρὰ συμφέροντα τῆς 
πόλεως) ; see Lob. Soph. Aj. 298 sq.; Held, Plut. Aem. p. 252. 

8. In quotations from the Old Test. a Part. is occasionally con- 
nected with some person of the same verb (and placed before it) ; 
as, Acts vii. 84 ἰδὼν εἶδον from Exod. iii. 7 (cf. Lucian. dial. mar. 
4,3), Heb. vi. 14 εὐλογῶν εὐλογήσω σε καὶ πληθύνων πληθυνῶ σε 
(from Gen. xxii. 17), Matt. xiii. 14 βλέποντες βλέψετε (from Isa. 
vi. 9). This construction is extremely frequent in the Sept., as 
Judges i. 28; iv. 9; vii. 19; xi. 25; xv. 16; Gen. xxvi. 28; 
xxxvii. 8,10; xliii. 6; Exod. iii. 7; 1Sam.i. 10; iii. 21; xiv. 28; 
1 Kings xi. 11; Job vi. 2; Ruth ii. 16; 1 Macc. v. 40; Judith 
ii. 13 (see Thiersch p. 164 sqq.), and is a Hellenizing of the Hebrew 
Inf. Absolute (Ewald, krit. Gr. 560 ff.), though the LXX, once 
accustomed to the construction, sometimes employ it even where 
the Hebrew contains no Inf. Absol., as in Exod. xxiii. 26. This 
mode of expression, however, was judiciously chosen, although in 
Greek prose, with the exception of that isolated ἐδὼν εἶδον in Lucian, 
no perfectly satisfactory parallels can be shown (Georgi, vind. pe 
196 sq. has mixed together things dissimilar) ;1 for in the instances 


1 Some passages have been quoted according to erroneous readings. Plat. Tim. 806. 
runs thus: τίνι τῶν ζώων αὐτὸν εἰς ὁμοιότητα ὃ ξυνιστὰς ξυνίστησε. Likewise Plat. Lach. 
185 d. σκοπούμενοι σκοποῦμεν is questioned by recent critics, and J/ith. 1301 proposes 
to read: σκοποῦμεν ἃ σκοποῦμεν. Yet the singularity here consists more in the con- 
nection of the Middle and Active. 





§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE. 855 


apparently corresponding the Part. carries its own idea, as in Her. 333 
δ, 95 φεύγων ἐκφεύγει fuga evadit (Diod. Sic. 17, 83), and still thet 
more in Xen. Cyr. 8,4, 9 ὑπακούων σχολῇ ὑπήκουσα, Lucian. 3872 
parasit. 43 φεύγων ἐκεῖθεν ... eis τ. Tavpéov παλαίστραν κατέφυγε, 

see Gataker de stylo ὁ. 9;? Lob. paralip. p. 522. The later wri- 
ters are the first to imitate this construction, as Anna Alex. 3, 80; 
Euseb. H. E.6,45. Originally this Participle implied an emphasis, 
though subsequently it may have become weakened. In the three 318 
passages quoted above, this emphasis is per¢eptible. We express Sth od 
it by the voice and the position of the words, or by a corresponding 
abverb, etc.: well have I seen, — surely (richly ?) will I bless thee, 

— with your own eyes shall ye see, etc. Acts xiii. 45 is a construc- 
tion of another sort: οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι ἀντέλεγον τοῖς ὑπὸ τοῦ Παύλου 
λεγομένοις, ἀντιλέγοντες καὶ βλασφημοῦντες, where ἀντέλεγον is 
taken up again in the Part. and strengthened by βλασφ. 


Eph. v. 5 τοῦτο ἴστε γινώσκοντες probably does not come under this 
head, but ἴστε refers to what is stated in vs. 3f., and γινώσκ. is construed 
with ὅτι : this, however, ye know, aware (considering) that, ete. That 
1 Pet.i. 10, 12; Acts v. 4 do not come under this rule, is obvious to every 
one. Finally, it passes comprehension that Kiihnél should adduce Heb. 
_ x. 387 ὃ ἐρχόμενος ἥξει (he omits, it is true, the Article) as an instance of 
the above usage. 

Note 1. On Participles used absolutely, see ὃ 59. Such is also τυχόν, 
1 Cor. xvi. 6, which is inserted in the clause as an adverb, Xen. A. 6, 1, 
20; Plato, Alcib. 2, 140, ete. 

Note 2. Sometimes two finite verbs are so closely connected by καὶ, 
that the first has, logically, the force of a Part., e.g. Matt. xviii. 21 ποσάκις 
ἁμαρτήσει εἰς ἐμὲ ὃ ἀδελφός μου καὶ ἀφήσω αὐτῷ, i.e. ἁμαρτήσαντι τῷ ἀδελφῷ. 
This distribution of a single (logical) clause into two grammatical clauses is 
a peculiarity of Oriental diction, and is of frequent occurrence ; see § 66, 7. 

Note 3. Luke and Paul (still more, however, the author of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews) are peculiarly fond of participial constructions. Paul 
accumulates Part. on Part.; cf. 1 Thess. ii. 15 f.; Tit. ii. 12, 13; 2 Cor. 
iv. 8-10. In narration, however, the use of Participles appears on the 
whole less frequent and less diversified in the N. T. than in Greek his- 
torical authors. The historical discourse of the N. T. runs on in simple 


1 It is hardly necessary to remark that the phrase ἰδὼν οἶδα (scio me vidisse) Athen. 
6, 226; Arrian. Ind. 4, 15 does not come under this head. Cf. also ἀκούσας οἶδα Lucian. 
dial. mort, 28, 1. 

2 This author has rightly set aside the passage from Aeschyl. Prom. 447. But he 
found himself finally compelled to let the instance from Lucian. dial. mar. stand. 
Accordingly, viewed linguistically, it approximates the Hebrew mode of expression, a 
fact which Thiersch should not have questioned. 


856 §46. THE PARTICLES IN GENERAL, 


334 clauses (which are joined together especially by the oft-recurring καί) 
ith ed. and disdains the periodic structure in which the Greeks were so expert. 
Yet cf. Bornem. Xen. Cyrop. p. 465. 


373 CHAPTER V. 
THE PARTICLES. 


§ 46. THE PARTICLES IN GENERAL. 


1. Although propositions and periods can be formed by means 
of those inflections of the noun and verb whose syntax has been 
discussed in the preceding pages— (propositions, in particular, by 

819 means of Cases, the use of which is so varied in Greek ; periods, 

6th ol. by means of Infinitives, Participles, etc.) — yet those inflections 
alone do not suffice for. the great diversity of relations which give 
origin to propositions and periods. Hence language possesses 
besides a vast stock of so-called particles, by whose aid it becomes | 
possible to construct all conceivable propositions and all their con- 
ceivable combinations. Particles are divided, as is well-known, 
into Prepositions, Adverbs, and Conjunctions (Rost S. 717); 
though respecting the boundary-lines which separate these three 
species from each other, grammarians have not yet been able to 
agree. Cf., in particular, Hm. emend. rat. p. 149 ff. 


Interjections are not words, but sounds ; and lie quite beyond the limits 
of Syntax, and indeed of Grammar. 


2. Without attempting to settle the dispute among grammarians 
respecting the boundaries of these three classes of particles, we see 
at once as much as this: 

1) That the classification must be made not on the basis of the 
words but of their signification ; as it has long been acknowledged 
that prepositions e.g. often assume the nature of adverbs, and vice 
versi (Hm. as above, p. 161),— in fact, that the prepositions are 
adverbs originally. 

2) That all particles either serve merely to complete the struc- 
ture of a simple proposition and confine their import within its 

874 limits, or are designed to join one proposition to another. _The 
latter are properly called Conjunctions; and if the grammarian 


§ 46. THE PARTICLES IN GENERAL. 357 


pays regard to the language (expressed thought) rather than to 
the (pure) thought, he may reckon among them the comparative 
particle ὡς (ὥςπερ), the particles of time (ἐπεί, ὅτε, ὁπότε, etc.), 

the negative particle of design μή etc., so far forth as they are also 335 
connectives ; so that these particles, according to their import, “+ 
may be classed either as adverbs or as conjunctions. The power 

of adverbs and prepositions, however, is confined to the limits of a 
simple proposition ; the structure of this they serve to complete. 
Prepositions denote only relations (of substantives) ; adverbs, inke- 
rent attributes (of terms of quality or condition, and consequently 

of adjectives and verbs, inasmuch as the latter are compounded of 

the copula and a term of quality or condition). See, especially, 
Hm., as above, 152 ff. 


We shall perhaps never succeed in effecting a thoroughly satisfactory 
classification of the particles, since in this matter language practically does 
not coincide perfectly with the philosophical method of pure theory. 
Much light is shed on the relation of particles to the structure of sentences 
by Grotefend, Grundziige einer neuen Satztheorie. Hannover, 1827. 8vo.; 
Kriiger, Erérterung der grammat. Eintheilung und grammat. Verhiiltn. 
der Siitze. Frft.a. M. 1826. 8vo. Cf. also Werner in the n. Jahrb. f. Philol. 
1834. p. 85 ff. 


3. The great copiousness of the Greek language in particles, as 399 
developed in the elegant literary Attic, is shared by the N. T. dic- éth ἃ 
tion to but a limited extent; for not only was the (later) popular 
language of the Greeks in general more frugal in the use of par- 
ticles, but the N. T. authors also, as they imparted a Jewish tinge 
to their presentations of thought, did-not feel impelled to employ 
the niceties of Greek composition in the structure of periods. 
From the nature of the case, however, while they could easily 
dispense with the great variety of conjunctions, they could least 
dispense with the prepositions. In treating of particles, N. T. 
Grammar, if it will ayoid encroaching on the department of Lexi- 
cography, should not take up the particles separately and explain 
in detail all their various significations, but should endeavor 
rather, primarily to give only a clear and discriminating deline- 
ation of the various modifications of thought which the particles 
are employed to designate; and then in every instance to point 
out how far these varieties of meaning have been expressed by 
the N. T. writers through the use of the abundant store of particles 
which the Greek language supplied. At the same time, however, 
it will take pains to exhibit in its leading traits, so far as the exist- 


358 847. THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC. 


ing state of N. T. Lexicography and Interpretation may permit, 

the mutual dependence of the significations of the principal parti- 

875 cles, and emphatically to protest against the arbitrariness of what 
is called enallage particularum. 


The general subject of the Greek particles had never been in any 
considerable degree exhaustively treated even down to quite recent times, 
either as respects the facts (especially in reference to the various periods 

336 of the language) or still less as respects their philosophy. ‘The works of 

ith οὐ, Mt. Devarius (Reusmann’s edition, Lips. 1793. 8vo.) and H. Hoogeveen 
(Amsterd. 1769. 11. 4to. condensed by Schiitz, Lips. 1806. 8vo.) are no 
longer satisfactory, especially as they entirely omit the prepositions. On 
the other hand, J. A. Hartung, Lehre y. ἃ. Partikeln der griech. Spr. Erlang. 
1832 f. Il. 8vo. merits recognition. Still more helpful are the acute re- 
searches with which R. Klotz has enriched his edition of Devarius (Lips. 
1835. 1842. II. 8vo.); [cf also W. Baumlein, Untersuchung iib. griech. 
Partikeln. Stuttg. 1861. 8vo.]. Schraut, on the other hand, die griech. 
Partikeln im Zusammenhange mit den iltesten Stiimmen der Sprache 
(Neuss, 1848), is too fanciful. A comparative treatment is given by E. A. 
Fritsch, vergleich. Bearbeit. ἃ. griech. u. lat. Partikeln. Giessen, 1856. 8vo. 
For the biblical particles a Lexicon Particularum to the Sept. and the 
Apocrypha is a desideratum,\as the concordances and Schleusner also in 
his Thesaur. Philol. have entirely omitted these words. (Bruder, as is 
well known, has carefully inserted the particles in his N. 'T. Concordance.) 
Tittmann’s treatise on N. T. Particles (de usu particular. N.'T. Cap. 1, 2, 
Lips. 1831. II. 4to., also in his Synonym. N. T. II. 42 sqq.) is not thoroughly 
to be commended; moreover it was interrupted by the death of the acute 
and learned author, who however did not pay ‘ due attention to the actual 
usage of the language. 


321 § 47. THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL,! AND SUCH AS GOVERN 
6th ed. THE GENITIVE IN PARTICULAR. 


1. The prepositions correspond to the cases ; hence each accord- 
ing to its signification is connected with a particular case, viz. 
with that case whose primary meaning accords with the primary 
meaning of the preposition. Prepositions are employed where the 
cases are insufficient to indicate a relation (for these relations are 
extremely diversified), and sometimes also where a case would 

876 have sufficed indeed, but on account of the variety of its uses did 


1 Cf, Hm. de emend. rat. p. 161 sqq ; B. G. Weiske, de praeposition. gr. comment. 
Gorlic. 1809 f.; K. G. Schmidt, quaestion. grammat. de praeposition. gr. Berol.1829.8v0.; ~ 
Déderlein, Reden u. Aufs. IL. nr. 3; Bhdy. 8. 195 ff. ; Schneider, Vorles. S. 181 ff. 


§ 47, THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC. 359 


not appear to the speaker to be definite enough for his purpose. 
They are relatively more numerous in the N.T. than in Greek 
prose, because the apostles had not such an inherent sense as 
cultivated native Greeks of the extended application of the 
cases; besides, the Oriental prefers the more vivid expression ; 
and moreover, the Hebrew-Aramaic language indicates by means 
of prepositions nearly all those relations which are designated in 
Greek by cases alone. 

2. In treating of prepositions it is necessary, in the first place, 337 
to seize with clearness and precision the true primary meaning of Τὰ θὲ 
each from which all its applications emanate as from a common 
centre, and to trace back to this all the various shades of meaning 
the preposition may have assumed, —i.e. to show how the transi- 
tion to every such application was effected in the mind of the 
speaker or writer; and secondly, to take cognizance of the case, 
and the necessity for it, which is joined to a given preposition, 
either in general or in a particular range of significations (Bern- 
hardi, allg. Sprachl. I. 164 f.), and in turn to make use of this 
knowledge in fixing the limits of the signification of the prep- 
ositions themselves. The former, viz. the determination of the 
primary meaning of the prepositions as exhibited now in their 
construction with the Gen. now with the Dat. etc., will set in its 
true light the mutual interchange of prepositions, which in the 
N.T. has been thought to be wholly unlimited. The latter must 
be performed without a passion for over-strained refinements, and 
with a recognition at the outset of the fact that, according to the 
special, and according to the more or less precise, perception of a 
relation to be expressed (particularly if mental), one and the same 
preposition may be construed with several different cases (cf. Hm. 
emend. rat. 163). 

In treating of prepositions in the N. T., it is only necessary to 
. add first, a notice of how far later Greek, and in particular the 

popular language, extended the use and import of prepositions, 
obliterated their nicer distinctions, and was led probably even into 322 
improprieties in employing them ; further, to pay constant regard ‘4 ¢ 
na Hebrew-Aramaic, which delights in the use of prepositions 





and presents numerous relations under aspects different from the 
reek (cf. e.g. ὀμόσαι ἔν τινι, ἀποκτείνειν ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ); and finally, 

not to leave out of sight the distinctively Christian view which 377 

underlies the use of many prepositions (e.g. ἐν Χριστῷ or κυρίῳ). 





The maltreatment of the prepositions until a few decades ago on the 


O_O ein, 


360 847. THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC. 


part of N. T. philologists in Lexicons and Commentaries (e.g. Koppe’s 
N. T.) was really horrible ;* but it found precedent and support in the 
purely empirical treatment of the Hebrew prepositions current until Ewald’s 

time, see my exeget. Stud. I. 27 ff. Wahl was the first to pursue a better 
course ; and almost everybody now has begun to be ashamed of the license 
just described. 

As respects in particular the comparative predominance of the Greek 
element and of the Hebrew-Aramaic in the use of the prepositions, it must 
not be overlooked, 1) that many constructions which the N.T. writers 
adopted through the influence of their mother tongue, occur also in Greek 
poets and later prose writers, so diversified is the use of the Greek prepo- 

388 sitions; 2) that though in the more Hebraistic portions of the N. T. 

ἴμ el. (particularly in the Revelation) the exposition from the Hebrew suggests 
itself, yet we must not on that account explain the Greek prepositions in 
all the books indiscriminately by a reference to the Hebrew ; for simul- 
taneously with the Greek prepositions a multitude of special linguistic 
relations had been communicated to the Apostles, and close observation 
shows that as respects the relations expressed by prepositions the Apostles \ 
had already become accustomed to think in Greek; 3) that, especially in 
Paul (and John), the un-Hellenic application of several prepositions (e.g. 
év) is closely connected with doctrinal phraseology, and belongs to the 
Apostolic (Christian) element in N. T. diction. ee see 





3. The proper and the metaphorical significations of each prepo- 
sition must be accurately distinguished. The former always refer 
primarily to local relations (Bernhardi I. 290); and if these are 
conceived in great multiplicity by a nation, a corresponding multi- 
plicity of prepositions is the result. The simple relations of place 
are but two, — that of rest and that of motion (or even merely of 
direction, which is viewed as more or less a motion). The latter, 
however, comprises motion towards and motion from. The notion 
of rest is denoted by the Dative; that of motion towards, by the 
Accusative ; that of motion from, by the Genitive. 

323 Local designations to which single prepositions correspond are, 
nly a) of rest: in ἐν, by the side of Tapa, upon ἐπί, over ὑπέρ, under 
(iro), amid (with) μετά, before πρό, behind μετά, on (up on) ava, 
about ἀμφί, around περί, over against ἀντί; bb) of (direction) 
motion towards a point: into eis, towards κατά, to πρός, wpon ἐπί, 
to beside παρά, under ὑπό; c¢) of (direction) motion from: out of 
ἐκ, from ἀπό, from under ὑπό, down from κατά, from beside παρά. 
To the last division may be referred through relating to space (διά) 


1 Tittmann, de scriptor. N. T. diligentia gramm. p. 12 (Synon. I. 207): nulla est, ne 
repugnans quidem significatio, quin quaecunque praepositio eam in N. T. habere dicatur. 


§47. THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC. 361 


(ef. Progr. de verbor. cum praeposs. compositor. in N. T. usu V. 
p. 3), for which the Hebrew uses ja, and the German sometimes aus 
(e.g. aus dem Thore gehen). 

4. Language deals at first with the ideas of time by taking local 
relations as the pattern ; hence temporal senses also are put upon 
most of the prepositions. Not till later does the transition ensue 
to immaterial, purely ideal relations, which every nation conceives 
under forms more or less material. This produces a correspond- 
ing diversity in national modes of expression. A Greek, for 
instance, says, λέγειν wept twos; a Roman, dicere de aliqua re; 

a Hebrew, 3 723; a German, iiber etwas sprechen. The first views 

the object as a central point which the speaker as it were encom- 339 
passes (to speak about a thing); the Roman, as a whole of which the. 
the speaker imparts something to the hearer (de as it were to speak 

off something from the object);! the Hebrew, as the ground on 
which the speaker stands (to speak on something) ; the German, 

as something lying before the speaker over which his discourse 
extends (for tiber governs in this connection the Accusative). 

The notion of origin, and consequently of cause, is most naturally 
implied in the prepositions from, out of (ἀπό, ὑπό, παρά, éx) ; that 
of occasion, and consequently also of motive, in πρός, eis (e.g. on 
the report), ἐπί with the Dat. and διά with the Acc. (on account of). 
Here ἐπί refers to the basis on which something rests; hence we 
also use the word grownd for reason. Design and aim expressed 
by to are denoted by ἐπί with the Dat., or by εἰς or πρός with the Acc. 
Condition is expressed by ἐπί with the Dat., just as we say by a 379 
similar metaphor: auf Lohn Recht sprechen. The object which 
underlies an emotion is indicated by ἐπί with the Gen., as in German 
sich freuen iiber (rejoice over), stolz sein auf (pride one’s self on). 

To speak in reference to an object is λέγειν περί τινος (see above). 
The rule, or standard, is expressed either by after (πρός, kata) or 
by from (ἐκ) ; in the former construction, the rule is conceived as 
something after, according to, which a thing is to shape itself; in 
the latter, as that from which the thing regulated is derived. 
Lastly, the means finds natural expression in dé with the Gen., 324 
sometimes in ἐν. δι ed 

5. One preposition may sometimes, no doubt, be employed for 
another ; but we must deduct from instances of this class all those 
in which an immaterial relation may be expressed with equal pro- 


1 As to the primary import of the Latin de, see Heidtmann in the Zeitschr. f. Alterth. 
Wiss. 1846. no. 109 ἢ, 
46 


862 § 47, THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC. 


priety by several different prepositions,! (loqui de re and super re, 
ζῆν ἔκ aud ἀπό twos, ὠφελεῖσθαι ἀπό and ἔκ τ. Xen. Cyr. 5, 4, 34; 
Mem. 2, 4, 1, also ἐπί τινι, ἀποκτείνεσθαι ἀπό and ἔκ τινος Rev. ix. 18, 
ἀποθνήσκειν ἔκ τινος Rey. viii. 11 and ὑπό τ., ἀποθνήσκειν ὑπέρ and 
περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν. ἀγωνίζεσθαι περί and ὑπέρ τινος. ἐκλέγεσθωι ἀπὸ 

340 and ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν).Σ2Σ This cannot be called enallage of preposi- 

. The tions. On the other hand, particularly in expressing local relations, 
the more comprehensive preposition may be used for the more 
restricted, (as Luke xxiv. 2 ἀποκυλίζειν τὸν λίθον ἀπ ὁ τοῦ μνημείου, 
but Mark xvi. 3 ἐκ τῆς θύρας τοῦ μνημείου ; the latter agrees better 
with the precise facts of the case: out of the door —cut into the 
rock). This is sometimes attributable to the fact that it does not 
seem to be everywhere necessary to speak with entire precision, 
sometimes the author may through negligence have used the more 
indefinite term for the more definite. The interchange of preposi- 
tions is only apparent when any of them is employed praegnanter, 
i.e. when it includes also a second relation, the antecedent or con- 

880 sequent of that which it strictly expresses, as κατοικεῖν εἰς τὴν πόλιν, 
εἶναι ὑπὸ νόμον ; or in case of an attraction, as αἴρειν τὰ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας 
Matt. xxiv. 17, ἀποτάξασθαι τοῖς εἰς τὸν οἶκον Luke ix. 61. 


An arbitrary interchange of prepositions — (of which the earlier Ν. T. 
commentaries are full, and which was upheld in part by an abuse of 
parallel passages, especially in the gospels) — would never have entered 
the imagination of critics, had they been accustomed to consider language 
as a living instrument of social intercourse. It is really preposterous 
to suppose that any one could have said, ‘he is travelling to Egypt’ for 
‘he is travelling in Egypt’ (εἰς for ἐν) ; or, ‘all i is for him’ instead of ‘all 
is from him.’ In expressing by, for instance, διά and ἐν are not thoroughly 
equivalent to each other, particularly διὰ “I. Χριστοῦ and ἐν Ἰ. Χριστῷ. 
In Latin, also, per (before names of persons) and the Ablative (of things) 
are usually distinguished. Close observation shows in general how cor- 
rectly the N. T. writers discriminate between those prepositions even which 


1 Thus Paul sometimes employs different prepositions in parallel clauses, to give 
variety to his discourse ; as, Rom. iii. 30 ὃς δικαιώσει περιτομὴν ἐκ πίστεως kal ἀκροβυστίαν 
διὰ τῆς πίστεως, Eph. iii. 8 f. 

2 Sometimes in different languages the same relation, because viewed under different 
aspects, is expressed by prepositions of exactly opposite significations. ‘Thus Germans 
say, zur Rechten ; the Romans, Greeks, and Hebrews, a dextra ete. Even one and 
the same language may express a relation, especially if ideal, by opposite prepositions. 
We say on the condition and under the condition. In South Germany they say, relation 
or friend to (zu) one; in Saxony, relation or friend of (von) one. How ridiculous it 
would be to infer from such instances, that of (von) is sometimes equivalent to to (zu), 
and on to under ! 


§ 47. PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC. $63 


are closely allied (6.5. Rom. xiii. 1 οὐκ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ἀπὸ θεοῦ, ai δὲ 
οὖσαι ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν) .1 (And we ought to honor them and 325 
ourselves by recognizing everywhere their scrupulous car 6th of 

Where either of two prepositions might be employed with equal pro- 
priety, a preference for one in the N. T. is perhaps to be attributed to the 
Hellenistic tinge of its diction ; this, at least, the critic must take into 
consideration as a possibility. Planck, however (articuli nonnulli Lex. 
πον. in N. T. Goeit. eer 4to. p. 14), is mistaken in supposing that ἀγαθὸς 
πρός τι (Eph. iv. 29) is less correct Greek than εἴς τι. ‘The former con- 
struction is of frequent occurrence, e.g. Theophr. hist. plant. 4, 3, 1 and 7; 

9, 13,3; Xen. Mem. 4, 6, 10, ete.; see Schneider, Plat. civ. 11. 278. 

With such prepositions as in different significations govern different 
cases, it is sometimes possible, when immaterial relations are to be ex- 341 
pressed, to use either of two cases with equal correctness (as ἐπί with Τὴ ed 
Gen. or Acc.). Sometimes the Codd. vary between the two; see Rom. 
viii. 11. In the N.T. this has been erroneously said to hold frequently 
in reference to διά ; see below, ὃ 47, i, d. p. 381, cf.§ 49¢. Purely external 
relations, on the contrary, sustain no such interchange in careful writers ; 
only very late, especially the Byzantine, authors indulge in it, and con- 
found e.g. μετά with the Gen. and with the Acc. ; see the word in the Index 
to Malalas in the Bonn ed., cf. Schaef. Ind. ad Aesop. p. 1386; Boisson. 381 
Anecd. IV. 487; V. 84.2 Indeed the later writers have already become 
so devoid of an appreciation of the cases as to begin to connect prepositions 
even with cases altogether foreign to them, — ἀπό, for instance, with Acc. 
and Dat., κατά with Dat., σύν with Gen.; see Index to Leo Gramm. and 
Theophan.’ 

The attempt, recently revived, to explain this alleged interchange of 
cases in the N.T. by the circumstance that Hebrew has no cases, is to be 
rejected, if for no other reason, because apart from a very small number 
of doubtful exceptions the N.T. writers exhibit a correct perception of 
the differences between the cases. 

The position of prepositions is more simple in the N. T. than in the 
classics, Mtth. II. 1399 f. They are uniformly placed immediately before 
the noun, and only those conjunctions which never stand at the beginning 
of a clause intervene between preposition and substantive ; as, δέ Matt. 

xi. 12; xxii. 31; xxiv. 22, 36; Acts v. 12, γάρ Jno. iv. 37; v.46; Acts 
viii. 23; Rom iii. 20, re Acts x. 39; xxv. 24, ye Luke xi. 8; xviii. 5, μέν 
and μὲν γάρ Rom. xi. 22; Acts xxviii. 22; 2 Tim. iv. 4. 








1 Hence I cannot admit what Liicke, Apokal. II. 458, says about an irregular and 
inconsistent use of prepositions in the N. T. 

2 In close succession μετά signifying with takes the Acc. and then the Gen. in Acta 
apocryph. p. 257. 

® The case is different with ἐν followed by the Ace.; see Schaef. Dion. comp. p. 305; 
Ross, inscriptt. gr. I. 37. 


. 


264 § 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 


396 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 


7 a. "Avri (Lat. ante), of which the local meaning is (directly) 


before,in front of, over-against, denotes figuratively barter, exchange 
(Plato, conv. 218 e.), in which one thing is given for, instead of, 
another (tooth for tooth, Matt. v.38), and in consequence assumes 
its place. It governs the Genitive, that being the case of (issuing 
from and) exchange (see above, p. 206), e.g. 1 Cor. xi. 15 ἡ κόμη 
ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται (τῇ yuvaixi) her hair for, instead of, a 
covering (to serve her as a covering, ef. Lucian. philops. 22; Liban. 
ep. 850), Heb. xii. 16 ὃς ἀντὶ βρώσεως μιᾶς ἀπέδοτο τὰ πρωτοτόκια 
αὑτοῦ, Vs. 2 ἀντὶ τῆς προκειμένης αὐτῷ χαρᾶς ὑπέμεινε σταυρόν (for 
the joy that was set before him, against this setting death on the 
cross), Matt. xx. 28 δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν, 
xvii. 27 ἐκεῖνον (στατῆρα) λαβὼν δὸς αὐτοῖς ἀντὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ, 
ii. 22 ᾿Αρχέλαος βασιλεύει ἀντὶ “Hpwdov in place of Herod, ef. 

842 Her. 1, 108; Xen. A. 1,1,4; 1 Kings xi. 44. Hence ἀντί is the 

ith el. reposition chiefly used to denote the price for, in exchange for, 
which one gives or receives an article of merchandise (Heb. 

882 xii. 16); then, to denote requital (Lev. xxiv. 20) and reward 
(bordering on the causal sense, like the Germ. ob) e.g. ἀνθ᾽ ὧν 
(as a recompense) for this (that), i.e. because, Luke i. 20; xix.44; 
Plat. Menex. 244; Xen. A. 5, 5,14; 1 Kings xi. 11; Joel iii. 5; 
or on which account (wherefore) Luke xii. 8; ἀντὶ τούτου Eph. 
v. 81 (Sept.) therefore, for this, cf. Pausan. 10, 38,5. “Avi is used 
in Jno. i. 16 ἐλάβομεν ... χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος in a peculiar applica- 
tion, referable, however, to its primary import: grace over, upon, 
grace (Theogn. sent. 344 ἀντ᾽ ἀνιῶν ἀνίας), strictly grace against, 
Jor, grace, grace in the place of that which preceded, therefore 
grace uninterrupted, unceasingly renewed. 

Ὁ. ᾿4πό, ἐκ, παρά, and ὑπό, all denote isswing, proceeding from 
—the generic import of the Genitive—but with some diversity as 
respects the previous mutual relation of the objects in question. 
Beyond doubt é« indicates the closest connection ; ὑπό, one less 
close; παρά (de chez moi, 59), and especially azo,' one still 
more distant. Accordingly, these prepositions may be ranged in 


1 The distinction between ἀπό and ἐκ is perceptible in Luke ii. 4 (cf. also Acts 
xxiii. 34); but in Jno. xi. 1 (see Liicke in loc.) and Rey. ix. 18 ἀπό and ἐκ are employed 
as synonymous. Cf. also Luke xxi. 18 with Acts xxvii. 34. On the other hand, in 
the parallel passages Mark xvi. 3 and Luke xxiv. 2 ἀπό and é are respectively used, — 
out of the door, the more precise (and suitable) expression, and (away) from the sepul- 
chre, the more loose ; see p. 362. 


847. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 865 


the following order, proceeding from the most intimate connection 

to the more remote: ἐκ, ὑπό, παρά, ἀπό. Further, if merely the 
idea of proceeding from is to be expressed, ἀπό is used. If the 
proceeding is definitely thought of as from @ person, παρά or ὑπό 

is required. If the person is to be indicated only in a general 
way as the point of departure, παρά is used ; if represented strictly 

as the efficient, producing cause, ὑπό is selected, and hence is the 327 
regular preposition after passives. Finally, the idea of distance Stet 
and separation attaches itself to amo; so that both ἀπό and ἐκ 
express disjoining and removal, while these notions are not directly 
implied by παρά and ὑπό. 

Παρά is used properly in reference to objects proceeding from 
one’s vicinity or sphere of power (παρά with Gen. used antitheti- 
cally to πρός with Acc. in Lucian. Tim. 53), e.g. Mark xiv. 48 
παραγίνεται ὄχλος πολὺς... Tapa τῶν ἀρχιερέων from the chief 
priests (near whom, about whom, they served ; οἵ, Lucian. philops. 

5; Demosth. Polycl. 710 b.), xii. 2 ta παρὰ τῶν γεωργῶν λάβῃ 
ἀπὸ τοῦ καρποῦ part of the produce which was in the hands of the 
husbandmen ; Jno. xvi. 27 ὅτε ἐγὼ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον (cf. i. 1 

ὁ λόγος ἣν πρὸς Tov Oedv), v. 41 (Plat. rep. 10, 612 d.); xv. 26; 348 
Fph. vi. 8; Luke ii. 1; 2 Pet. i. 17. Accordingly, it is joined to ἢ ὦ 
verbs of inquiring and asking Matt. ii. 4,16; Mark viii. 11; Jno. 383 
iv. 9, of learning 2 Tim. iii. 14; Acts xxiv. 8 (Xen. C. 2, 2,6; 
Plat. Euth. 12 e.), the matter to be learned etc. being viewed as 

in some one’s (mental) possession (ἀπό Mark xv. 45; Gal. iii. 2 
expressing this more indefinitely ; ἔκ twos Xen. Oec. 13, 6 with 
greater precision). It is only in later writers that παρά is used 
after Passive verbs as exactly equivalent to ὑπό (Bast, ep. crit. 

p- 156, 235; Ellendt, Arrian. Alex. II. 172). In Acts xxii. 30 τι 
κατηγορεῖται παρὰ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων, Luke could hardly have said ὑπὸ 
τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων (they had as yet laid no formal charge, had not yet 
taken measures for a regular prosecution), the meaning is: of 
what he is accused on the part of the Jews. Matt. xxi. 42 παρὰ 
κυρίου ἐγένετο αὕτη (Sept.) means: this is from the Lord (divinitus, 
through means under God’s control) ; and Jno. i. 6 ἐγένετο ἄνθρω- 
πος, ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Oeod: he made his appearance, sent from 
God, cf. vs. 1 ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν. 

In no passage of the N.T. do we find παρά with Gen. used for παρά 
with Dat., as is sometimes assumed in Greek authors (Schaef. Dion. comp. 
p- 118sq.; Held, Plut. Tim. p. 427). In 2 Tim. i. 18 εὑρίσκειν implies 
the notion of procuring ; (otherwise in Luke i. 30 εὗρες χάριν παρὰ τῷ θεῷ 


866 § 47, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 


with God.) Mark ν. 26 is to be explained by attraction; probably, how- 
ever, in ili. 21 of παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ are his kindred (those descended from him, 
those belonging to him), see Fr. in loc. cf. Susann. 33. As to παρά ina 
circumlocution for the Gen. see ὃ 30, 3, note 5. That τὰ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν Phil. 
iv. 18, and τὰ παρ᾽ αὐτῶν Luke x. 7, are not strictly equivalent to τὰ ὑμῶν 
(ὑμέτερα), αὐτῶν, is obvious; in both passages the phrase is accompanied 
by a verb of receiving (having received the things sent from you i.e. your 
presents ; eating what is set before you from (by) them). 


Ἔκ originally denotes issuing from within (the compass, sphere, 

of) something (antithetic to εἰς Luke x. 7; xvii. 24; Herod. 4, 15, 
10; Aesch. dial. 8, 11), e.g. Luke vi. 42 ἔκβαλε τὴν δοκὸν ἐκ τοῦ 
ὀφθαλμοῦ (it was ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ), Matt. viii. 28 ἐκ τῶν μνημείων 
328 ἐξερχόμενοι, Acts ix. 3 περιήστραψεν αὐτὸν φῶς ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, 
δι οἱ, Matt. i. 16 ἐξ ἧς (Mapias) ἐγεννήθη ᾿Ιησοῦς, vs. 3; 1 Pet. i. 28, 
Concisely in Luke v. 3 ἐδίδασκεν ἐκ tod πλοίου out of the ship 
(speaking from on board) ef. ii. 35. Allied to this is the use of 

ἐκ to denote the material out of which a thing is made, Matt. 
xxvil. 29; Rom. ix. 21; cf. Herod. 8, 4,27; Ellendt, Arrian. Alex. 

I. 150; then, the mass or store out of which a thing is taken, Jno. 
384 vi. 50 φαγεῖν ἐξ ἄρτου, Luke viii. 3; 1 Jno. iv. 13 ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος 
αὐτοῦ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν he hath given us of his Spirit; further, the class 

to which one belongs, (owt) ef which one is, Jno. vii. 48 μή τις ἐκ 
τῶν ἀρχόντων ἐπίστευσεν ; iii. 1 ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων, xvi. 17 
εἶπον ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν (τινες), 2 Tim. iii. 6; 2 Jno. 4 ; Rev. ii. 10, 
344 or the country from which one derived his origin, Acts xxiii. 84, 
ithel. the progenitor from whom one is descended, ‘ESpaios ἐξ Ἑβραίων 
(Plato, Phaedr. 246 a., ef. δουχλέκδουλος D.S. exc. Vat. p. 31), ef. 
Heb. ii. 11; lastly, the situation, state out of which one comes, 
Rev. ix. 20, or (by brachylogy) out ef which he undertakes some- 
thing, 2 Cor. ii. 4 ἐκ πολλῆς θλίψεως ... ἔγραψα ὑμῖν. Sometimes 

éx is used in a local sense, like the Latin ex for de (down from), 
Acts xxviii. 4 κρεμάμενον τὸ θηρίον ἐκ τῆς χειρός (Judith viii. 24 ; 
xiv. 11; Odyss. 8,67; Her. 4,10; Xen. M. 3, 10,13), Acts xxvii. 29, 

or, with less precision,! Heb. xiii. 10 φαγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου 
JSrom the altar (what was laid as an offering upon the altar) ;? 


1 Mark xvi. 3 does not come under this head: see above, no. 5, p. 362. Besides, it 
must not be forgotten that the same relation may be conceived somewhat differently 
_in different languages, and yet with equal propriety: e.g. Rom. xiii. 11 ἐγερθῆναι ἐξ 
ὕπνου, (aufstehen vom Schlafe) arise out of, from, sleep. In Rey. vi. 14 é« is probably 
used designedly, as the mountains are rooted in the earth. It is certainly so used in 
Jno. xx. 1. 

2In the N. T. καταβαίνειν ἐκ τοῦ ὄρους is unique, Matt. xvii. 9 (Exod. xix. 14; 


8 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 867 


sometimes it denotes mere direction, from, Matt. xx. 21 ἵνα καθί- 

cwow ... εἷς ἐς δεξιῶν etc., Heb.i. 13 (Bleek in loc.), where the Germ. 

says on (to) the right, zur Rechten, the Lat. a dextra, the Hebr. 72. 

In making such specifications it is a matter of indifference whether 

the mind proceeds from the object to be located (towards itself), 

or from itself towards the object. The former conception the 

Greeks have adopted (ἐκ δεξιᾶς), the latter, the Germans; cf. 

Goeller, Thue. 8,33. For analogous expressions see Thue. 1764; 

8,51, and Her. 3, 101 οἰκέουσι πρὸς νότου ἀνέμους When used 

of time, ἐκ denotes the point of departure of a temporal series 

since which something continues to exist, Acts xxiv. 10 ἐκ πολλῶν 

ἐτῶν ὄντα σε κριτήν etc. Jno. vi. 66; ix.1; Acts ix. 33; Gal.i. 15, 

ἐξ ἱκανοῦ Luke xxiii. 8 (like ἐκ woddod).1 Here the Greek says 

out of, viewing the time specified, not as we do as a point from 385 

which something is reckoned, but by a more vivid conception as an 329 

expanse out of which something extends (as ἐξ ἡμέρας. ἐξ ἔτους etc.). tH ob 
Figuratively, this preposition denotes every sowrce and cause out 

of which something issues (hence ἐκ and διά are related, Franke, 

Dem. p. 8; Held, Plut. Tim. 331, cf. Fr. Rom. I. 332), and is 

applied either to things or persons, Acts xix. 25; Rom. x. 17; 

2 Cor. ii. 2; iii. 5. Under this head the following applications 

of ἐκ deserve attention: Rev. viii. 11 ἀποθνήσκειν ἐκ τῶν ὑδάτων 

(ix. 18; Dio Ὁ. p. 239, 27, cf. Iliad. 18,107), Rev. xv. 2 νικᾶν 

ἔκ τινος (victoriam ferre ex aliq. Liv. 8, 8 extr.), 1 Cor. ix. 14 345 

ἐκ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ξῆν (Luke xii. 15 ef. with ἀπό Aristot. pol. 3, 3,2 Med 

ex rapto vivere Ovid. Met. 1, 144), Luke xvi. 9 ποιήσατε ἑαυτοῖς 

φίλους ἐκ τοῦ μαμωνᾷ τῆς ἀδικίας, Rom. i. 4 ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐξ 

ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν (source out of which convincing evidence flows, 

ef. Jas. ii. 18). Its use in reference to persons? is especially fre- 


xxxii. 1), for which in other passages we find xara. ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους, Matt. viii. 1; Mark 
ix. 9; Luke ix. 37. 

1 The N. T. passages formerly adduced to show that ἐκ means statim post do not 
establish the assertion. Luke xi. 6 signifies come in from a journey; xii. 36 return 
Jrom the wedding ; Ino. iv. 6 fatigued from (by) the journey; 2 Cor. iv. 6 out of darkness, 
light etc. In many of these passages to render ἐκ immediately after would be altogether 
unsuitable; in others it would obtrude a specification of time where the writer thought 
primarily only of the condition from, out of which, etc. Least of all can ἐκ be translated 
immediately after in Heb. xi. 35. 

3 Ziv ἐκ τοῦ δικαίου Demosth. Eubul. 540 b., which Wahl quotes in his Clavis, does 
not come under this head. : 

8 This use is very extended, particularly in Herodot., see Schweighaeus. Lex. Herod. 
p- 192. Further, cf. e.g. Diog. L. 1, 54; Philostr. Soph. 2, 12 etc. and Sturz, Lexic. Xen. 
IL. 88. 


868 § 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 


quent and diversified ; compare besides, Jno. iii. 25 ἐγένετο ζήτησις 
ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν ᾿Ιωάννου (Plato, Theaet. 171 a.), Matt. i. 18 ἐν 
γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου, JNO. Vil. 22 οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ Mwicéws 
ἐστὶν (ἡ περιτομή), Rom. xill. 3 ἕξεις ἔπαινον ἐξ αὐτῆς (ἐξουσίας), 
Jno. x. 82 πολλὰ καλὰ ἔργα ἔδειξα ὑμῖν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός μου, Vi. 65 
(Her. 8, 114), xviii. 8; 1 Cor. vii. 7; 2 Cor. ii. 2; Rom. v. 16 
(Fr. inaccurately translates it by per) ; most of all in reference to 
sovereigns, rulers, magistrates, Xen. An.1,1,6; Cyr. 8,6,9; Her. 
1, 69. 121; 2, 151; Polyb. 15, 4, 7. Ἔκ is specially employed 
to express the mental state, the disposition out of which something 
springs, 1 Tim. i. 5 (Rom. vi. 17), Mark xii. 80; Phil. i. 16; 
1 Thess. ii. 8 (Plato, Phil. 22 b.; Xen. An. 7, 7, 48 ἐκ τῆς ψυχῆς 
φίλος ἦν, Arrian. Ep. 3, 22, 18; Aristoph. nub. 86) ; then the 
occasion, Rev. xvi. 21 ἐβλασφήμησαν τὸν θεὸν ἐκ τῆς πληγῆς (but 
not, as Meyer thinks [yet no longer, 4th ed.],in 1 Cor. x. 11) and 
the ground (ratio), Rev. viii. 13— for each is the source of its 
consequence (Lucian. asin. 46; Demosth. Con. 727 b.) 51 the basis 

886 of a judgment (from which a judgmeut is deduced), Matt. xii. (83) 
87 see Kypke in loc., Rev. xx. 12; Xen. C. 2, 2, 21 and 3,6; 
Aesop. 93, 4 (by a different metaphor we say judge according to, 
on, cf. ἐν 1 Jno. iii. 19; v. 2), and consequently the standard, 
2 Cor. viii. 11. "Ex, moreover, sometimes denotes the price of a 
thing, Matt. xxvii. 7 ἠγόρασαν ἐξ αὐτῶν (ἀργυρίων) ἀγρόν (Palaeph. 
46, 3), inasmuch as the property is viewed as accruing to us out 
of the money (given for it), cf. Matt. xx. 2 (where the expression 
is abbreviated). As to ἐξ ἔργων εἶναι and similar phrases in Gal. 
iii. 10; Rom. iii. 26; iv. 14,16; Phil. i. 17; Tit. i. 10, see my 
Comment. on the first passage. In general, the phrase εἶναι ἔκ 

830 twos partakes of all the diversified significations of the preposition, 

bth el of, e.g. 1 Cor. xii. 15 ὅτε οὐκ εἰμὶ χείρ, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ TOD σώματος ; by 
an opposite conception we say belong ἐο the body. 


That é never stands for év (as has been assumed even in Greek authors 

346 occasionally, see Poppo, Thuc. 2, 7; 8, 62) is beyond question. As to 

Ὧι ed. the attraction in Matt. xxiv. 17 αἴρειν τὰ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας see ὃ 66, cf Poppo, 
Thue. II. I. 493. 


Ὑπό signifies from under, out from under (rn) 6.5. Hesiod. 
theog. 669 Ζεὺς ... ὑπὸ χθονὸς ἧκε etc. Plato, Phaedr. 230 b. 


1 Other passages adduced (e.g. by Bretschn.) to prove that ἐξ means on account of, 
are to be excluded. Rom. v. 16 is easily referrible to the idea of source. Acts Xxviii.3 
may be rendered, gliding forth out of the heat ; recent editors, however, read ἀπό. 


| 





§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 869 


It commonly accompanies Passive verbs!'—in order to designate 
the subject from whom the action proceeds, who had the power, 
therefore, to do or to omit it, — and Neuter verbs also which can be 
used as Passives; as, 1 Cor. x. 9 ὑπὸ τῶν ὄφεων ἀπώλοντο, Matt. 
xvii. 12; 1 Thess. ii. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 24; ef. Demosth. Olynth. 3, p. 
10 c.; Lucian. Peregr. 19; Xen. Cyr. 1, 6,45; An.7, 2,22; Lysias 
in Theomnest. 4; Pausan. 9,7,2; Plat. apol. 17 a. and conv. 222 e.; 
Philostr. Apoll. 1, 28; Polyaen. 5, 2,15, and Porson, Hur. Med. 
p- 97; Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. 11. 880. In these instances the forces 
which have produced death, destruction, ete., are regarded as effi- 
cient causes, killing, destroying, etc. ; if, on the contrary, ἀπό had 
been used (cf. παθεῖν ἀπό Matt. xvi. 21), they would have been 387 
designated merely as that from which a result ensued (occasional 


causes). In the former case, the Active construction, the serpents 


destroyed, etc. might have been directly substituted ; in the latter, 
it would be inaccurate. Cf. the difference between βλάπτεσθαι 
ἀπό twos and ὑπό τινος in Xen. C. 1, 3, 30; Aeschin. dial. 2, 11. 
See, in general, Engelhardt, Plat. Apol. p. 174 sq.; Lehmann, 
Lucian. VIII. 450; II. 23; Schulzvom Abendm. 8.218. Further, 
ὑπό is applied not merely to persons or animate beings, but also 
to inanimate agencies, 1 Cor. vi. 12; Col. ii. 18; Jas. i. 14, ete. 


The meaning of 2 Pet.i.17 φωνῆς ἐνεχθείσης αὐτῷ τοιᾶςδε ὑπὸ τῆς 
μεγαλοπρεποῦς δόξης is simply : when such a voice was borne to him by the 
exalted Majesty. All other expositions are arbitrary. 


"Aro means, locally, from in the widest sense — whether what 
has come from anything, may have been previously on, with, at, or 
beside (even in) the object in question, — principally, therefore, 331 
the opposite of ἐπί with the Acc. Diog. L. 1, 24; as, Luke xxiv. 2 bth ed 
εὗρον τὸν λίθον ἀποκεκυλίισμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου, Matt. xiv. 29 
καταβὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ πλοίου coming down from the ship (he was on the 
ship), iii. 16 ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος up from the water (not out of 
the water), xv. 27 τῶν ψιχίων τῶν πιπτόντων ἀπὸ τῆς τραπέζης 
(they were on the table), Acts xxv. 1 ἀνέβη εἰς ἱΙεροσόλυμα ἀπὸ eet 


12 Pet. ii. 7 ὑπὸ τῆς τῶν ἀθέσμων ἀναστροφῆς ἐῤῥύσατο would be an instance of the 
transition if the words were taken as they stand (out of the power of the conduct of the 
lawless, under the influence of which Lot had been left) cf. Iliad. 9, 248 ἐρύεσθαι ὑπὸ 
Τρώων ὀρυμαγδοῦ, 23, 86. See, in general, Hm. Eurip. Hee. p. 11. But the usual mode 
of connecting ὑπὸ τῆς with καταπονούμενον is to be preferred. Moreover, in Luke 
viii. 14 also, ὑπό after a Passive is to be recognized (Active Matt. xiii. 22 and Mark 
iv. 19), where Bornem. has proposed another, but not a satisfactory (construction and) 
exposition, in which, however, Mey. concurs. 

47 


370 § 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 


Καισαρείας from (not out of) Caesarea. In its developed appli- 
cation (whether in the realm of matter or of mind) ἀπό specially 
indicates, 

a) Separating, letting go, desisting, Matt. vii. 23 ἀποχωρεῖτε ἀπ᾽ 
ἐμοῦ, Luke xxiv. 31 ἄφαντος ἐγένετο ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν, Heb. iv. 4 κατέ- 
παυσεν ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἔργων, Rey. xviii. 14 (ef. also ἀποκρύπτειν, 
παρακαλύπτειν ἀπό Matt. xi. 25; Luke ix. 45, and the pregnant 
phrases in Col. ii. 20; Rom. ix. 3; 2 Thess. ii. 2; Acts viii. 22; 
2 Cor. xi. 3 and the like), and consequently, remoteness, Jno. 
xxi. 8 (Rev. xii. 14; οἵ, Xen. An. 8, 3,9; Soph. Oed. Col. 900). 
Far more frequently, 

b) Proceeding from, in any respect, — especially temporal ori- 
gin and commencement from ... forward, since Matt. ix. 22; xxv. 
84; 2 Tim. iii. 15; Acts iii. 24, or the commencement of a series 
Matt. ii. 16; Luke xxiv. 27; Jude 14 (ἀπὸ ... ἕως Matt. i. 17; 
xi. 12; Acts viii. 10, ἀπὸ ... εἰς 2 Cor. iii. 18) ; hence the source, 
material, or mass, from which anything comes, Matt. iii. 4 (Lucian. 

888 dial. deor. 7,4; Her.7, 65), Actsii. 17 (Sept.) ἐκχεῶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύ- 
patos μου, Luke vi.13; xv.16; Jno. xxi.10; Matt. vii.16. Further, 
ἀπό expresses derivation under manifold aspects Jude 23, descent 
(from a people or country), hence place ef abode, sect Matt. 
xxi..11; xxvii..573 Jno. xi. 1; -xii..21; Acts ii. 5; xv. 53 Heb. 
vii. 18 (Polyb. 5, 70, 8; Plut. Brut. c. 2; Her. 8,114) ; especially 
does it indicate, concretely, the personal point of departure of an 
efficiency (viewed merely as such, — not as a conscious and self- 
moved power, to denote which παρά is used with Neuter verbs 
Schulz, Abdm. S. 215 ff.,! and ὑπό 3 with Passives, in the N. T. as 


1 After verbs of receiving, borrowing, etc. ἀπό merely designates simply and in general 
the whence: Matt. xvii. 25 ἀπὸ τίνων λαμβάνουσι τέλη ; it is kings who are the λαμβά- 
νοντες ; παρά would have indicated the immediate source, and would have been employed 
in this passage had the tax-gatherers been the λαμβάνοντες. In the expression λαμβάνειν 
παρά τινος, the τις is always viewed as active (as giving or tendering) ; in λαμβάνειν 
ἀπό τινος, merely as the proprietor. In 8 Jno. 7 the apostle would have used παρά 
and not ἀπό (τῶν ἐθνῶν) if the meaning had been that the Gentiles had actually tendered 
agratuity. In Col. iii. 24 ἀπὸ κυρίου ἀπολήψεσθε τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν the reward is indi- 
cated as proceeding from the Lord ; παρὰ κυρ., Which Paul might have employed here, 
would have denoted the Lord’s direct communicating of the reward. On the other hand, 
Christ says in Jno. x. 18 with precision, ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν ἔλαβον παρὰ τοῦ πατρός. 
Paul likewise, in 1 Cor. xi. 23, writes παρέλαβον ἀπὺ τοῦ κυρίου I received from the 
Lord, not: the Lord himself has (directly, personally, in an ἀποκάλυψις) communicated 
it to me ; παρά, which some uncial Codd. give, is undoubtedly a correction ; see Schulz, 
as above, 215 ff.; cf. N. theol. Annal. 1818. II. 820 ff. 

2 The Codd. occasionally vary between ἀπό and ὑπό, as in Mark viii. 31; Rom. xiii. 1, 
which is frequently the case in those of Greek authors also, Schaef: Melet. p. 22, 83 sq, 


§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 871 


well asin Greek authors!) e.g. Acts xxiii. 21 τὴν ἀπὸ σοῦ érayye 348 
λίαν (see above, ὃ 80, 3, note 5), Rom. xiii. 1 οὐ yap ἐστιν ἐξουσία th εἰ 
εἰ μὴ ἀπὸ θεοῦ (immediately followed by ai δὲ οὖσαι ὑπὸ τοῦ th al 
θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν), Matt. xvi. 21 παθεῖν ἀπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων 889 
πων χρὼς dial. deor. 6, 5; Plat. Phaed. 88 b. ), Mark xv. 45 γνοὺς 
ἀπὸ τοῦ Kevtupiwvos, Matt. xii. 38 θέλομεν ἀπὸ cod σημεῖον ἰδεῖν, 
Acts ix. 13; Gal. i. 1; 1 Cor. iv.5; 2 Cor. vii.13; 1 Jno. ii. 20; 
iv. 21; Col. iii. 24; 2 Thess. i. 9,— and, abstractly, the efficient 
power itself, and may therefore be rendered through, Acts xx. 9 
κατενεχθεὶς ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕπνου, Rev. ix. 18. Further, it signifies the 
occasion, Acts xi. 19 (Poppo, Thue. III. I. 128, 598 ; Stallb. Plat. 
rep. II. 1800, and the motive, Matt. xiv. 26 ἀπὸ rod φόβου ἔκραξαν 
for fear, xiii. 44; Luke xxi. 26; xxii. 45; xxiv. 41; Acts xii. 14; 
Plutarch. Lysand. 23; Vig. p.581,— the (objective) cause, propter, 
Matt. xviii. 7 (according to some Heb. v. 7 also; see Bleck), or 
prae (in negative expressions), Acts xxii. 11 οὐκ ἐνέβλεπον ἀπὸ 
τῆς δόξης τοῦ φωτός on account of (for) the splendor (his not 
seeing arose from the splendor), Luke xix. 8; Jno. xxi. 6, see 
Kypke in loc. (Acts xxviii. 3 var.), cf. Held, Plut. Tim. 314 (Judith 


Schweighaeuser, Lexic. Polyb. p. 69, and others. Further, we find ἀπὸ for ὑπό after 
Passives in later writers more and more frequently (especially in the Byzantines; see 
e.g. Index to Malalas in the Bonn edit.) ; in earlier authors this interchange is on the 
whole rare, yet see Poppo ad Thue. III. I. 158; Bhdy. 224. 
1 Τῇ Jas. i. 13 ἀπὸ θεοῦ πειράζομαι means simply, J am tempted (through influences 
proceeding) from God, and is a more vague expression than ὑπὸ θεοῦ πειράζομαι which 
would be identical with θεὸς πειράζει με. The words that follow, πειράζει δὲ αὐτὸ ς 
οὐδένα, merely show that the apostle has also in mind a direct temptation by God (cf. 
Hm. Soph. Oed. Col. 1531; Schoemann, Plutarch. Cleom. p. 237); the phrase ἀπὸ θεοῦ 
is very frequently a sort of Adverb, divinitus. In Luke vi. 18 the words πνευμ. ἀκαθ. 
signify the malady itself; had the expression been e.g. ὀχλούμενοι ἀπὸ νόσων, it would 
have presented no difficulty. In Luke ix. 22; xvii. 25, ἀποδοκιμάζεσθαι ἀπό is simply : 
to be rejected on the part of theelders. That in Acts xii. 20 διὰ τὸ τρέφεσθαι αὐτῶν τὴν 
χώραν ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλικῆς (Arist. pol. 4,6) ἀπό is not used instead of ὑπό, is quite obvious. 
Schneckenburger, ad Jac. i. 13, who asserts that it is, has in general not discriminated 
with sufficient care. As to Matt. xi. 19 see Fr. in loc. and Lehmann, Lucian. VI. 544; 
2 Cor. vii. 13 does not at all come under this head; ἀπό there means from (through 
j influence proceeding from). In Acts x. 17 (text. rec.) of ἀπεσταλμένοι ἀπὸ τοῦ Κορνηλίου 
. (Arrian Epict. 3, 22. 23) is simply: those sent from C., the deputation from C.; whereas 
ἀπεστ. ὑπό (which some Codd. [Sin. also] give as a correction) would be more definite: 
those whom he (in person) had sent; cf. 1 Thess. iii. 6 ἐλθόντος Τιμοθέου πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀφ᾽ 
ὑμῶν (they had not sent him). In 1 Cor i. 380 ὃς ἐγενήθη σοφία ἡμῖν ἀπὸ θεοῦ who became 
tous wisdom from God, ὑπό is not necessary, cf. Her. 5, 125 (see also Stallb. Plat. rep. 103). 
Finally, in Jas. v. 4 ὁ μισθὸς ὁ ἀπεστερημένος ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν, probably ἀπό was used designedly: 
on your part, by you (though not solely or directly). (Both prepositions occur together 
in significations obviously different in Luke v. 15 according to some Codd. and in 
Rom. xiii. 1, cf. Euseb. H. E. 2, 6, p. 115, Heinichen.) 





eat Pie. 


872 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 


ii. 20, Gen. xxxvi.7 etc.; Her. 2,64). Acts xvi. 33 is a pregnant 
construction : ἔλουσεν ἀπὸ τῶν πληγῶν he washed and cleansed 
them from their stripes, i.e. from the blood with which they were 
covered in consequence of the blows. Matt. vii. 16 is evidently, 

« from their fruits (objectively) will the knowledge be derived 
(Arrian. Epict. 4, 8, 10),— (the case is different in Luke xxi. 30 
ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν γινώσκετε, 2 Cor. x. 7, where the subjective power 
whence the knowledge comes is indicated; ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, indeed, 
often signifying sponte). 


Schleusner and Kiihnél maintain that ἀπό denotes also 1) in, Acts 
333 XV. 88 τὸν ἀποστάντα ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Παμφυλίας who had left them in 
6ih οἱ, Pamphylia. But the obvious meaning is: who had left them (as they 
390 were proceeding) out of Pamphylia. This is quite different from ἐν IL., 
349 which might have implied that Marcus remained in P. but separated from 
Mth ed. Paul, ef. xiii. 13. 2) de, Acts xvii. 2 διελέγετο αὐτοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν ; 
but this means: starting (in his discourses) from the Scriptures, or draw- 
ing his arguments from the Scriptures (cf. Epiphan. Opp. 11. 840 .); ef. 
Acts xxviii. 23. Nor is the signification de supported by Her. 4, 53. 195 
(Schweighaeuser, Lexic. Herod. I. 77). 3) per, Acts xi.19 διασπαρέντες 
ἀπὸ τῆς θλίψεως, which however means owing to the persecution, the 
persecution being the occasion or incidental cause. 4) modo, instar, 
2 Tim. i. 3 ἀπὸ προγόνων, see also Flatt in loc. The phrase signifies, from 


my forefathers (Polyb. 5,55, 9), with the sentiments inherited from them. 


On such passages as Jno. xi. 18; Rev. xiv. 20 see ὃ 61, 5 remark p. 557. 


6. "Audi does not occur in the N. T. 

ἃ. Πρό before (in a wider sense than ἀντί), locally in Acts v. 23; 
Jas. v. 9, also Acts xiv. 13, cf. Heliod. 1,11, 80; Boeckh, Corp. 
inscript. Il. 605. It is more frequently used temporally, either 
with nouns of time, 2 Tim. iv. 21 πρὸ χειμῶνος, Jno. xiii. 1 ; 2 Cor. 
xii. 2; Matt. viii. 29, and the Inf. of verbs, Matt. vi. 8; Jno. i. 49, 
or with personal pronouns and names of persons, Jno. v. 7 πρὸ 
ἐμοῦ, x. 8; Rom. xvi. 7. It is used figuratively in Jas. v. 12 πρὸ 
πάντων ante omnia, 1 Pet. iv. 8 (Xen. M. 2, 5, 3; Herod. 5, 4, 2). 
As to the original use of this preposition, explaining its construction 
with the Gen., see Bhdy. p. 281. 

e. Περί. The fundamental meaning of this preposition may be 
discerned in its construction with the Dative. With that case it 
denotes encircling, shutting in, on several or on all sides (closely 
related to ἀμφί, which signifies shutting in on both sides). Hence 
it is different from παρά, which merely indicates that one object 
is near to, beside another. Περί with the Gen. is used in prose 


847. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 873 


almost exclusively in a figurative sense (yet cf. Odyss. 5, 68),' to 
designate an object as the centre of activity, around which the 
activity is conceived as moving, — e.g. contending, drawing lots, 
caring, about anything, Matt. vi. 28; Mark xiii. 32; Jno. x. 13; 
xix. 24;2 and then quite usually deciding, knowing, hearing, 391 
speaking, about, concerning (de, super), see above, p. 361. At 
other times it is to be rendered by for (as pray for one), Jno. 334 
xvi. 26; Acts viii. 15; Heb. xiii. 18; Luke xix. 37; 1 Thess. i. 2; bth ed. 
or on account of, Jno. xv. 22; Acts xv. 2; xxv. 15; 1 Pet. iii. 18 
(although many traces of about are to be discerned in these cases), 350 
or in reference to, Matt. iv. 6; Rom. xv. 14; 1 Cor. xii. 1; Jno. 7th ed. 
vii. 17; Demosth. Ol. 1, § 11. In the last sense περί with its 
substantive is put at the beginning of a sentence in appearance 
absolutely, as an exponendum (Stallb. Plat. rep. 11. 157 and Tim. 
p. 97), 1 Cor. xvi. 1 περὶ τῆς Aoyias etc. quod ad pecunias attinet, 
although these words are grammatically connected with ὥςπερ 
διέταξα ; and still more perceptibly in 1 Cor. xvi. 12 περὶ ᾿Απολλώ, 
πολλὰ παρεκάλεσα αὐτόν, ἵνα ἔλθῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς etc. (cf. Papyri Taur. 
1, 6, 81; de is similarly used e.g. in Cic. fam. 3,12). Sometimes 
περί appears to signify superiority, over and above, prae, as in the 
Homeric περὶ πάντων ἔμμεναι ἄλλων (Bhdy. 260). Some (Beza) 
have taken it in this sense in 3 Jno. 2 περὶ πάντων εὔχομαί ce ete. 
above all (Schott) ; Liicke, in support of this explanation, quotes 
a passage from Dion. H. 11. 1412 (where, however, περὶ ἁπάντων 
means in reference toetc.). Still, it seems to me that the impossi- 
bility of connecting περὶ πάντ. with the Infinitives which follow 
(Bengel and BCrus. in loc.) has not yet been shown. 

f. Πρός. The meaning from (something) hitherwards, which 
accords with the primary: force of the Genitive, flows from its local 


1 That the /ocal sense around is not without example in (later) prose writers, has 
been shown by Locella, Xen. Ephes. p. 269; ef. Schaef. Dion. comp. 351. Accordingly, 
in Acts xxv. 18 περὶ οὗ might be joined with σταθέντες (as is done by Mey.), ef. vs. 7 
περιέστησαν of ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων καταβεβηκότες ᾿Ιουδαῖοι. 

2 Verbs of caring for, ete. are construed also with ὑπέρ, see ὑπέρ, below. As to the 
distinction between the two constructions, Weber, Demosth. p. 130 says: περί solam 
mentis circumspectionem vel respectum rei, ὕπέρ simul animi propensionem ete. signi- 
ficat. Verbs of contending (about or for anything) have the same double construction. 
Hence in one and the same passage περί and ὑπέρ are sometimes contrasted, Franke, 
Demosth. p. 6 sq. 

8 Even here, however, as the construction was originally viewed the preposition 
undoubtedly bears the signification around. Surpassing around all is he who by his 
superiority so encircles, as it were, all, that no one can emerge from the mass. Before 
all marks the relation only on one side; περί, on all sides. 


874 - § 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 


use, Hm. Vig. p. 863, and is evident also from examples like τὸ 
ποιεύμενον πρὸς τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων Her. 7, 209, πάσχομεν πρὸς 
αὐτῆς Alciphr. 1, 20 (Bhdy. 264) and εἶναι πρός τινος to be on one’s 
side, cf. ad Herenn. 2,27 ab reo facere. Hence πρὸς ἐμοῦ, like 6 
re nostra, to my advantage, according to my interest, Lob. Phryn. 
20; Ellendt, Arrian. I. 265. Πρός in this sense gives way in the 
N.T. to ἀπό and ἐκ; it is used only once, Acts xxvii. 34 τοῦτο 
(taking nourishment) πρὸς τῆς ὑμετέρας σωτηρίας ὑπάρχει is for 
(conducive to) your deliverance, strictly, is on the side, as it 
were, of your deliverance. A similar expression occurs in Thuc. 
3, 59 οὐ πρὸς τῆς ὑμετέρας δόξης non cedet vobis in gloriam. 

892 g.’Emi. The primary import of ἐπί, which might justify its 
being used with the Gen., has almost disappeared, unless we choose 
to translate e.g. Luke iv. 29 ὄρους, ἐφ᾽ οὗ ἡ πόλις αὐτῶν φὠκοδόμητο 
up from which (on which upwards) was built (D. Sic. 8, 47; Polyb. 
10, 10,5). Usually ἐπί indicates the being upon, above, a place 
(point or level), whether the object is regarded as at rest or in 
motion,’ Matt. x. 27 κηρύξατε ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων, xxiv. 30 ἐρχόμενον 

_ 885 ἐπὶ τῶν vededar, ix. 2,6; Acts v.15; viii. 28 ; Rev. xiii. 1; 1 Cor. 
διὰ ed. <i. 10; Luke xxii. 21, especially ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (opposed to ἐν TO 

351 οὐρανῷ) ef. Xen. An. 8, 2,19; Arrian. Al. 1, 18,15. Applied to 
waters, it may refer not merely to their surface, Rev. v. 13 ἐπὶ τ. 
θαλάσσης.2 but also to their coasts or banks (cf. Arrian. Al. 1, 18, 
10) Jno. xxi. 1 ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης by the sea, on the sea-shore (Polyb. 
1, 44,4; Xen. An. 4, 3,28; 2 Kings ii. 7, cf. the Hebrew bz). It 
is further applied to elevated objects (up) on which something is 
placed e.g. on the cross Acts v. 80; Jno. xix. 19. On.the other 
hand, the local sense of beside, near, alleged in N. T. Lexicons, 


1 Wittmann, de natura et potest. praep. ἐπί. Schweinf. 1846. 4to. In most cases the 
Latin language employs in for it. The German auf, which is applied both to heights 
and to plains, corresponds to the Greek word in many respects. Mark viii.4 ἐπ᾽ ἐρημίας 
entirely resembles the German auf dem Felde, though we do not employ auf in that 
particular phrase. Cf. Matt. iv. 1 ἀνήχθη εἰς τὴν ἔρημον. 

2 Here belongs also Jno. vi. 19 (it seems that in Matt. xiv. 25 ἐπὶ τὴν θάλ. must be 
read) περιπατεῖν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλ. to walk on the sea, cf. Lucian. philops. 13 βαδίζειν ἐφ᾽ ὕδατος, 
vera hist. 2, 4 ἐπὶ τοῦ πελάγους διαθέοντες (Jobix.8). By itself ἐπὶ τ. Oar. might indeed 
also be translated on the edge of the sea. This assuredly Fr. Mt. p. 502 did not mean 
to deny. 

8 Even in the case of things on the same /evel, the Greek, by a conventional or 
ethical conception which we not seldom share, speaks of an above. Above the door { Her. 
5, 92) might, for instance, be applied to a person who stands near the door inside the 
room; on the other hand, under the door to one outside, at the door. Cf. as to the 
kindred ὑπέρ Bhdy. S. 243. The relation is conceived very differently in different 
languages. 


§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 875 


cannot be certainly established. In Luke xxii. 40 τόπος refers to 
a hill (though we also say on the spot); in Matt. xxi. 19 ἐπὶ τῆς 
ὁδοῦ means on the way ; in Acts xx. 9 ἐπὶ τῆς θυρίδος is upon the 
window; in Jno. vi. 21 τὸ πλοῖον ἐγένετο ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς is used of 
the landing of a vessel, and ἐπί refers to the rising shore; yet see 
what has been said before. 

The figurative meanings of éw/.are quite plain. It is used, 

a) Of authority and superintendence over etc.; as, Matt. 11. 22 
βασιλεύειν ἐπὶ ᾿Ιουδαίας, Rev. xi. 6; Acts viii. 27 εἶναι ἐπὶ πάσης 
τῆς γάζης, vi. 3; xii. 20; Rom. ix. 5 εἶναι ἐπὶ πάντων, Eph. iv. 6; 
cf. Polyb. 1, 34,1; 2 2,65,9; Arrian. Al. 3,5,4; Reitz, Lucian. VI. 
448 Bip. ; Schaef. Demosth. 11. 172; Held, Plutarch. Timol. 388. 

Ὁ) Of the subject, the ground-work as it were, of an action; as, 
Jno. vi. 2 σημεῖα ἃ ἐποίει ἐπὶ τῶν ἀσθενούντων Which he wrought 
on the sick (cf. Mtth. 1368); particularly of speaking, Gal. iii. 16 οὐ 
λέγει... ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν as of (upon) many (speaking of many), 
ef. scribere, disserere super re, and Sext. Emp. adv. Math. 2, 24; 
6, 25; Epict. ench. 8; Heind. Plat. Charm. 62; Ast, Plat. lege. 
Ρ. 114; Schoem. Plutarch. Agid. p. 76; Ellendt, Arrian. I. 436. 

9) Of presence, before (coram), particularly before judges, mag- 
istrates, etc. (in the phrase bring wp ‘before), Matt. xxviii. 14; 
[Mark xiii. 9]; Acts xxiii. 80; xxiv. 20; xxv. 9; 1 Cor. vi. 1; 
1 Tim. vi. 13 (cf. Ael. 8,2; Lucian. catapl. 16; Dio. C. p. 825; 
Schoem. Isae. 293) ; and then in general, 1 Tim. v. 19 ἐπὶ μαρτύρων 
before (with) witnesses (Xen. Hell. 6, 5, 38; vectig. 3,14; Lucian. 
philops. 22; Matzner, Antiph. p. 165) ;1 also 2 Cor. vii. 14 (before, i.e. 
in presence of, Titus), see Wetst. I. 443,562 ; Schaef. Melet. p. 105 

d) In a related sense, with names of persons, of the reign, Acts 
xi. 28 ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου wnder Claudius, Mark ii. 26 (Raphel. and 
Fr. in loc.), Luke iii. 2 (Her. 1,15; Aeschin. dial. 3,4; Xen. C. 
8, 4, 5, etc.; Bremi, Demosth. p. 165; Schweigh. Lexic. Herod. 
I. 243; Sturz, Lexie. Dion. Cass. p. 148) ; likewise simply of the 
lifetime (ἐπ᾽ ἐμοῦ in my time), especially of prominent characters, 
Luke iv. 27 ἐπὶ ᾿Ελισσαίου (Xen. C. 1, 6,31; Plat. rep. 10, 599 e. ; 
Crit. 112 a.; Alciphr. 1, 5 ἐπὶ τῶν προγόνων, Arrian. Epict. 8, 23, 
27); also with words denoting conditions and events (Xen. C. 
8, 7,1; Herod. 2,9, 7) Matt. i. 11 ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβ. at 
the time of the exile ; lastly, directly of time, Heb. i. 1 ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου 


1 The phrase in full would be, ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων etc. Matt. xviii. 16; 2 Cor. 
xiii. | (after the Hebrew "37 Ὁ). Even here, strictly, ἐπί means simply with: with 
(on) the testimony of . . . witnesses. 


998 


- 836 


6th ed. 


352 
th od. 


3876 § 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE 


τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων in the last of these days, 1 Pet. i.20; 2 Pet. iii. 
3, cf. Num. xxiv. 14; Gen. xlix. 1 (ἐπί τῶν ἀρχαίων χρόνων Aristot. 
polit. 8,10; Polyb. 1,15, 12; Isocr. paneg. ο. 44) ; and in general, 
of that with which something else is connected, Rom. i. 10 ἐπὶ τῶν 
προςευχῶν μου at (in) my prayers, 1 Thess. i.2; Eph. i. 16. The 
import of ἐπί is not quite the same in Mark xii. 26 ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου 
at the bush, i.e. concisely, at the- passage relating to the bush. 

394 Sometimes ἐπί in a local sense is also used with verbs of direc- 
tion, and even with verbs of motion (Bhdy. 246) to, towards, JSorth 
upon; as, Matt. xxvi. 12 βαλοῦσα τὸ μύρον ἐπὶ τοῦ σώματος on 
(over) my body, Acts x. 11 σκεῦός τι... καθιέμενον. ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς let 
down on (to) the earth, Mark xiv. 85 ἔπιπτεν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς upon the 
earth, Heb. vi. 7. So very frequently in Greek authors, Her. 1, 
164; 2, 73. 75.119; 4,14; 5, 33; Xen. Cyr. 7, 2,1, and Hellen. 
1, 6, 20; 8,4,12; 5,3,6; 7,1, 28 ete.; Sturz, Lexic. Xen. IL. 258 ; 
Ellendt, Arrian. Alex. I. 339; Wittmann, de natura et potestate 
praepositionis ἐπί. Schweinfurt, 1846. 4to. In this application 
ἐπί originally includes the notion of remaining on, wpon, see Rost 
553 (somewhat differently explained in Κα. 302).! Such passa- 
ges as Rev. x. 2; Luke viii. 16; Jno. xix.19; Acts v.15 {τιθέναι 
ἐπὶ τοῦ etc.) are traceable, like ponere im loco, to a different view 
of the action. 

ἢ. Mera properly signifies among, amidst (μέσος), Luke xxiv. 5 
τί ζητεῖτε τὸν ζῶντα μετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν ; Marki.13. Hence it denotes 
with (together with), Luke v. 80 μετὰ τῶν τελωνῶν ἐσθίετε, Jno. 
xx. 7; and that in reference to personal association, Jno. ili. 22; 
xviii. 2; Actsix. 39; Matt. xii. 42; Heb. xi. 9,2 and alternate 
action, Jno. iv. 27 λαλεῖν μετά Tivos, Vi. 43 γογγύζειν μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων, 
Matt. xviii. 23 cuvaipew λόγον μετά Twos, cf. Rev. ii. 16, 22; Luke 

353 xii. 13; especially if intellectual or moral, Matt. xx. 2 συμφωνεῖν. 

ith ed. μετά τινος, ii. 3; Luke xxiii. 12; Acts vii. 9; Rom. xii. 15; 1 Jno. 
i. 6 (εἶναι μετώ τινος Matt. xii. 80, ef. Xen. C. 2, 4, 7); sometimes 

887 where we should employ on or towards, erga, as Luke x. 87 ὁ ποιήσας 

δι δὲ, τὸ ἔλεος μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, i. 12 (23; probably not Acts xiv. 27), for we 

regard the individual towards whom kindness is shown as the 
object, not as the partner, of the act. But perd is applied also to 
things, Luke xiii. 1 ὧν τὸ αἷμα ἔμιξεν μετὰ τῶν θυσιῶν αὐτῶν, Matt. 


1 This distinction was perceived by so early a writer as Bengel (on Heb. vi. 7). 

2 Under this head comes also the Hebraistic πληρώσεις me εὐφροσύνης μετὰ τοῦ 
mposw@mov cov Acts ii, 28 Sept. (BMS), which must not be taken in a merely local 
signification. 


-¢47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 877 


xxvii. 84, especially to express equipment, accompaniment, envi- 
ronment, Luke xxii. 52 ἐξεληλύθατε μετὰ μαχαιρῶν, Jno. xviii. 3; 
Matt. xxiv. 31 (Dem. Pantaen. p. 628 c.; Herod. 5, 6, 19); then 
of accompanying actions and circumstances, particularly states of 
mind (Bhdy. 255), Heb. xii. 17 μετὰ δακρύων ἐκξζητήσας (Herod. 
1, 16,10), 1 Tim. iv. 14; Matt. xiv. 7; Mark x. 30; Acts v. 26; 
xvii. 11 ἐδέξαντο τὸν λόγον μετὰ πάσης προθυμίας, Matt. xiii. 20; 
xxviii. 8; 2 Cor. vii. 15 (Eurip. Hippol. 205; Soph. Oed. C. 1636 ; 
Aleiphr. 8, 38; Arist. magn. Mor. 2, 6; Herod. 1, 5, 19) ; lastly, 395 
of the inward connection of spiritual objects, Eph. vi. 23 ἀγάπη 
μετὰ πίστεως. In good prose μετά never designates the instrwment 
as such (Kypke 1. 148),!— in 1 Tim. iv. 14 μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν 
χειρῶν is with, amid, the laying on of hands (simultaneously with 
the act of imposition), Matt. xiv. Τ we? ὅρκου interposito jureju- 
rando (Heb. vii. 21) — yet it borders on this signification in Luke 
xvii. 15 μετὰ φωνῆς μεγάλης δοξάζων (essentially equivalent to φωνῇ 
μεγάλῃ or ἐν φωνῇ w.), and perhaps in Acts xiii. 17 ;? (cf. Polyb. 
1, 49, 9 ἤθροιζε μετὰ κηρύγματος, Lucian. philops. ὃ βοηθεῖν τινι 
μετὰ τῆς τέχνης, as σύν is used in other writers, at least in poets, 
Bhdy. 5. 214). As to Matt. xxvii. 66, however, see Fr. It never 
signifies after ; 8 in Mark x. 30 μετὰ διωγμῶν is, amid persecutions, 
as peta κινδύνων is amid dangers, Thuc. 1,18 a. Kiihnél and 
BCrus. erroneously render μετά with the Gen. in Matt. xii. 41 by 
contra; the meaning is: the men of Nineveh will appear at the 
judgment with this generation, i.e. when this generation appears 
before the judgment-seat, the Ninevites will appear also; for what 
purpose (against) we are first told by the words that follow. (The 
,use of the Gen. with werd is accounted for by the fact that what- 
ever attends or surrounds any one bears to him a certain relation 
of dependence. ) 

i. Διά. Its primary meaning is through, 1 Cor. xiii. 12 (Plat. 
Phaed. 109c.); but with the idea of going through is connected 
always, in the local sense, that of going forth or out from (thus in 354 
Hebrew and Arabic ya is the only preposition for the local through ; ‘th el 
cf. also Fabric. Pseudepigr. I. 191 ἐκφεύγειν δέ αἰῶνος, Matt iv. 4 


1The meaning of μετὰ λύχνου Fabric. Pseudepigr. II. 143 is: with a light, i.e. fur- 
nished with a light, carrying it with him, cum lumine, not lumine. On the other hand, 
ef. Leo Gramm. p. 260 μαχαίριον ἐπιφέρεται βουλόμενος ἀνελεῖν σε μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, p. 275 ete. 

2 Yet μετά here is probably to be understood of the ΣΌΝ: : with upraised 
arm, as he held up his arm over them (to protect them). 

8 Fabric. Pseudepigr. II. 593 μετὰ τοῦ ἐλθεῖν is undoubtedly an error in transcribing, 
for rd ἐλθεῖν. Further, the passages collected by Raphel. Mr. l.c. prove nothing. 

48 


878 § 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 


ἐκπορεύεσθαι διά from Deut. viii. 8, and διεξέρχεσθαι Plat. rep. 

338 10,621a.);1 hence dva governs the Genitive. It is applied to space 

hed. in simple expressions, Luke iv. 80 αὐτὸς διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν ἐπο- 
ρεύετο (Herod. 2, 1, 8), 1 Cor. iii. 15 σωθήσεται... ὡς διὰ πυρός, 
Rom. xv. 28 ἀπελεύσομαι δι’ ὑμῶν εἰς Σ΄ πανίαν i.e. through your 
city (Thue. 5,4; Plut. virt. mul. p. 192 Lips.), Acts xiii. 49 Sve 
φέρετο ὁ λόγος Ov ὅλης τῆς χώρας from one extremity to the other 

396 (throughout, Odyss. 12, 335; Plat. symp. p. 220b.), 2 Cor. viii. 18 
οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος ... διὰ πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν. 

From this local through, in Greek as in all languages, the transi- 
tion is easy to the instrument (whether animate or inanimate), as 
that through which the effect as it were passes (cf. in particular 
1 Pet. i. 7), that which intervenes between the volition and the 
deed, e.g. 3 Jno. 13 ob θέλω διὰ μέλανος καὶ καλάμου γράφειν, 2 Jno. 
12 (Plut. vit. Solon. p. 87 e.), 2 Cor. vi.7; 1 Cor. xiv. 9; 2 Thess. 
ii. 2 διὰ λόγου, Sc’ ἐπιστολῆς, by word of mouth, by letter, Heb. 
xiii. 22 διὰ βραχέων ἐπέστειλα ὑμῖν paucis scripsi vobis, see ὃ 64; 
thence it is applied to immaterial objects, as in 1 Cor. vi. 14 ἡμᾶς 
ἐξεγερεῖ διὰ τῆς δυνάμεως αὑτοῦ, Rom. iii. 25 ὃν προέθετο ἱλαστήριον 
διὰ τῆς πίστεως, Rom. ii. 12; Jas. ii. 12 κρίνεσθαι διὰ νόμου; to 
persons, as in Acts iii. 16 ἡ πίστις ἡ δι αὐτοῦ, 1 Cor. iii. 5 διάκονοι, 
δι’ ὧν ἐπιστεύσατε, Heb. iii. 16 of ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αὐγύπτου διὰ Moi- 
σέως. Thus in particular in the expression διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ © 
of the (mediatorial) agency of Christ in all its manifestations, 
Rom. ii. 16; v.1; 2 Cor. i. 5; Gal. i. 1; Eph. i. 5; Phil. i. 11, 
Tit. iii. 6 etc.,2 as also in διὰ πνεύματος (ἁγίου) Rom. v. 5; 1 Cor. 
xii. 8; Eph. iii. 16. To this (instrumental) use may be referred 
likewise 2 Tim. ii. 2 διὰ πολλῶν μαρτύρων intervenientibus multis 
testibus, through the interposition i.e. here in the presence of many 
witnesses, Heb. vii. 9 διὰ ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ Λευὶ δεδεκάτωται through 
Abraham (that is, in the person of Abraham as representative of 
the whole Israelitish people, when Abraham was tithed Levi also 
was tithed). vd but rarely indicates the causa principalis,? 1 Cor. 


1 Cf. Kiihner II. 281 and my 5th Progr.-de verbis composit. p. 3. 

2 This expression comes essentially under the same head when it is joined to praising, 
thanking, etc. Rom. i. 8; vii. 25; xvi. 27 ; Col. iii. 17. Not merely the benefits for 
which thanks are offered are procured through Christ, but even the thanksgiving itself 
is offered (if so as to be acceptable to God) through Christ who lives with God and 
continues the work of mediation for his people. The Christian does not give thanks 
in his proper person, but through Christ, whom he regards as the mediator of his prayer 
as well as of salvation. Philippi on Rom. i. 8 is unsatisfactory ; Bengel on the same 
passage is better. 

8 As to the Latin per for a, see Hand, Tursell. IV. 436 sq. The wrong done through 


$47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 379 


i. 9 (Gal. iv. 7 var.), in other words but rarely seems to be equiv- 
alent to ὑπό or παρά; but even in such cases it does not designate 355 
the author as such, i.e. as the one from whom something proceeds, ‘th ed 
but rather as the person through whose effort, or kindness etc. 339 
something accrues to one cf. Gal. i. 1 (without specifying whether 997 
it flows from him directly or indirectly).1. We may add with Fr. 
(Rom. 1. 15): est autem hic usus ibi tantum admissus, ubi nullam 
sententiae ambiquitatem crearet ; thus in Gal. i. 1, after the discrim- 
inating use of ἀπό and διά, διά alone is employed in summing up, 
and employed too of God. Many passages, however, have been 
erroneously referred to this class: in Jno. i. 3, 17 the doctrine of -— 
the Logos justifies the per of mediate agency, cf. Origen in loc. 
(Tom. I. 108 Lommatzsch) ; in Rom. i. 5 δι’ οὗ is explained from 

xv. 15; Rom. xi. 36, owing to the prepositions ἐκ and εἰς, admits 

no other interpretation ; on Gal. iii. 19 see my Comment.; in Rom. 

v. 2 nobody will be misled by Fr’s. remarks; in Heb. ii. 8 Christ 

is viewed as commissioned by God to proclaim salvation; as to 

1 Pet. ii. 14 see Steiger in loc.? 

To the idea of instrumentality διά can also be referred when 
used of the state of mind in which one does something, e.g. δύ ὑπο- 
μονῆς ἀπεκδέχεσθαι, τρέχειν Rom. viii. 25; Heb. xii. 1; Plut. edue. 
5,35; probably also 2 Cor. v. T διὰ πίστεως περιπατοῦμεν. Hence 
διά serves as a circumlocution for an adjective, 2 Cor. iii. 11 εἰ τὸ 
καταργούμενον (ἐστὶ) διὰ δόξης (1.6. ἔνδοξον) Mtth. 11. 1353. Διά 
is more loosely used of one’s equipment, and of the circumstances 


ν 

me, and the wrong done by me, may on the whole express quite the same thing; yet the 
wrong-doer is viewed in these expressions under two different aspects. Probably διά 
is employed purposely in Matt. xxvi. 24 τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ δι᾽ οὗ ὃ vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται 
(the betrayer was merely an instrument, cf. Rom, viii. 32) and in Acts ii. 43 πολλά τε 
τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐγίνετο, as the efficient cause was God himself 
(Acts ii. 22; xv. 12), cf. διὰ χειρῶν v.12; xiv. 3. That this more precise mode of 
expression is not observed everywhere and by all writers does not invalidate this 
exposition. 

1 Nearly to the same effect is the remark of Bremi on Corn. Nep. 10, 1,4. Even 
conceded that διά and ὑπό are wholly identical, it would not follow that Gal. iii. 19 
(véuos) διαταγεὶς δι’ ἀγγέλων represents the angels as authors of the Mosaic Law (as 
Schulthess persisted in asserting). ΤῸ justify any departure from the plain meaning — 
ordained through angels — far other and more solid reasons must be assigned than those 
urged by Schulthess. 

2 At first sight τίνας παραγγελίας ἐδώκαμεν ὑμῖν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ 1 Thess. iv. 2 
appears strange. But as the Apostle was mot acting in his private capacity, but as 
moved by Christ, the charges he issued were properly charges given through Christ. 

8 Xen, Ο, 4, 6, 6 is of a different sort. Also in 2 Cor. ii. 4 ἔγραψα ὑμῖν διὰ πολλῶν 
δακρύων is, properly, through many tears. Amid many tears is an expression somewhat 
similar ; see above, μετά p. 376 sq. 


380 §47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 


and relations under which he does something, e.g. 1 Jno. v. 6 

ἐλθὼν δι’ datos καὶ αἵμωτος came by means of water and blood, Heb. 

ix. 12 (yet see Bleek in loc.), Rom. ii. 27 σὲ τὸν διὰ γράμματος καὶ 

περιτομῆς παραβάτην ὄντα with letter and circwmcision, i.e. not- 

withstanding that thou wast in possession of a written law etc., 
356 iv.11; xiv. 20 ὁ διὰ προςκόμματος ἐσθίων he who eateth with offence 
308 (giving offence), (Markland, Lys. V. 329 Reisk.). 

Applied to time, διὰ denotes, a) During (i.e. within a space 

of time), Heb. ii. 15 διὰ παντὸς τοῦ Sv (Xen. Cyr. 2, 1,19; Mem. 
840 1, 2, 61; Plat. conv. 203 d.); even though the action takes place 
the. but once or occasionally within the period mentioned, as in Acts 
v.19; xvi. 9 ete. (of which laxer use no instances are to be found 
in literary Greek, Fr. in Fritzschior. Opusce. p. 164 sq.). 

Ὁ) After, as δ ἐτῶν πλειόνων Acts xxiv. 17, properly interjectis 
pluribus annis, many years intervening,’ i.e. after the lapse of many 
years (see Perizon. Aelian. p. 921 ed. Gronov. ; Blomfield, Aesch. 
Pers. 1006; Wetst. I. 525, 558), and Gal. ii. 1, ef. Her. 6, 118; 
Plat. lege. 8, 884 6.; Arist. anim. 8,15; Polyb. 22, 26,22; Geopon. 
14, 26,2; Plutarch. Agis 10; Lucian. Icar. 24, also Sept. Deut. 
ix. 11. Lastly, Mark ii. 1 8¢ ἡμερῶν after (some) days (Theophr. 
plant. 4, 4 δ ἡμερῶν τινωνῚὺ, cf. διὰ χρόνου Plat. Kuthyd. 273 Ὁ. ; 
Xen. Cyr. 1, 4, 28 (Raphel, Kypke, and Fr. in loc.). 


The following significations have been erroneously attributed to διά : 

a. Into (in with the Acc.): 1 Cor. xiii. 12 βλέπομεν δι ἐξόπτρου is said 
agreeably to a popular notion; the look passes through the mirror, inas- 
much as the form appears to be standing behind the mfrror. 

b. Cum: 1 Cor. xvi. 3 80 ἐπιστολῶν τούτους πέμψω ἀπενεγκεῖν etc. is to 
be rendered, by means of letters, so as to recommend them by letters 


Syriac |.2:..12). To be sure, the Apostle means at the same time 
δ ny Ρ 


1 No one will deny this signification who is not trying to find in the above passage 
of Gal. confirmation of his own previous decision respecting the chronology of Paul’s 
travels. That the preposition can have this meaning becomes plain, whether, with 
Mith. 1352, we derive it from the notion of distance which διά in a local sense denotes, 
or from the notion of passing through a succession of points of time (which are thereby 
indicated as travelled through, gone over), Hm. Vig. 856. The assertion that διά is 
thus applied only to a period of time after which something occurs as its result, is a 
subtilty which has no foundation in usage, and a misapplication of the notion of means 
(itself figurative) to explain a temporal use of the preposition, —a use always most 
closely connected with its local and primary import. Even, however, were the alleged 
restriction to be admitted, it would not be impossible to apply the expression διὰ dexar. 
ἐτῶν in Gal. ii. 1 to a journey the necessity of which Paul felt in consequence of an active 
ministry of fourteen years. At least, κατὰ ἀποκάλ. in vs. 2 could not be urged as a 
decisive argument on the other side. 

2 Her. 3,157 διαλιπὼν ἡμέρας δέκα, Isocr. perm. p. 746. 


8 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 881 


that they themselves should take the letters with them; but still the 
import of the Preposition is strictly preserved. 

c. Ad: 2 Pete i. 3 καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς διὰ δόξης καὶ ἀρετῆς is not ad relig. 
Christ. adduait eo consilio, ut consequeremini felicitatem etc., but called 
us by (means of) glory and might, so that in this call God’s power and 399 
majesty were exhibited (vs. 4, cf. 1 Pet. ii. 9). Some Codd. [Sin. also] 
give δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ. 

d. On account of, for διά with the Acc. (only thus in very late writers, 
e.g. Acta apocr. p. 252): In 2 Cor. ix. 13 διά denotes rather the occasion 857 
which gives rise to the δοξάζειν ; whereas what follows, ἐπὶ τῇ ὑποταγῇ, ith ed. 
means, for i.e. on account of the obedience. In 1 Cor. i. 21 οὐκ ἔγνω ὃ 
κόσμος διὰ τῆς σοφίας τὸν θεόν may very well be rendered: by means of 
their (boasted vs. 20) wisdom (it did not conduct them to this result) ; 
though the interpretation of others, in consequence of (sheer) wisdom, if 
taken thus: by the possession of wisdom (see above), is grammatically 341 
admissible. But διὰ τῆς μωρίας which immediately follows is decisive in Sth ed 
favor of the former explanation. Rom. vii. 4 ἐθανατώθητε τῷ νόμῳ διὰ τοῦ 
σώματος Χριστοῦ is elucidated by verses 1-3: Ye were made dead to the 
law through the body of Christ; with the death of the body of Christ 
(which had reference to the law) ye are made dead (slain) to the law. 
That in 1 Cor. xi. 12 διὰ τῆς γυναικός is not used for διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα (which 
would introduce here an extraneous thought) is the more clear from the 
circumstance that it is manifestly to be taken as corresponding to ἐκ τοῦ 
ἀνδρός ; the distinction between ἐκ and διά is obvious. In 2 Cor. viii. 8 
(Schott) διὰ τῆς ἑτέρ. σπουδῆς is to be joined to δοκιμάζων, see Bengel. 
Heb. xi. 39 (Schott) πάντες μαρτυρηθέντες διὰ τῆς πίστεως is, who through 
their faith have obtained a good report. Likewise the rendering per 
(Schott) in exhortations and adjurations (dy), Rom. xii. 1; xv. 30; 1 Cor. 
i. 10; 2 Cor. x. 1; 2 Thess. iii. 12, is entirely unfounded. To exhort or 
adjure one through the mercies of God, through the name of Christ, means : 
referring to, reminding of ete.; διά indicates the consideration held out 
to strengthen the exhortation. 


k. Kara. Its primary import is down, de (down upon, down 
from), cf. κάτω (Xen. A. 4, 2,17 ἁλλόμενοι κατὰ τῆς πέτρας, 1, 5, 8 
τρέχειν κατὰ πρανοῦς γηλόφου, Her. 8, 53): Matt. viii. 32 ὥρμησε 
πᾶσα ἡ ἀγέλη κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ (Galen. protrept. 2 κατὰ κρημνῶν, 
Dio Chr. 7,99; Porphyr. abstin. 4,15; Aelian. 7,14; Pausan. 10, 
2,2), 1 Cor. xi. 4 ἀνὴρ κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων having (a veil hanging) 
down from his head; cf. also, in a tropical use, 2 Cor. viii. 2 ἡ 
kata βάθους πτωχεία poverty reaching down to the depth! It 

1 To the same head is to be referred also Acts xxvii. 14 ἔβαλε kar’ αὐτῆς ἄνεμος 


τυφωνικός. The tempestuous wind rushed (from above) down upon the island. In 
Mark xiv. 3 κατέχεεν αὐτοῦ κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς (holding the flask of ointment over his 


882 § 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 


400 passes from this to denote the level over (through) which some- 
thing extends; and thus differs essentially from the local ἐν (with 
which by late writers it is often confounded, ef. Ellendt, Arrian. 
Alex. I. 855), as in Luke iv. 14 ἐξῆλθεν καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς περιχώρου, 
Acts ix. 81, 42; x. 87, οἵ, Arrian. Alex. δ, 7, 1 and Indic. 13, 6. 

Figuratively, it is applied to hostile movement directed against 
something, as in Matt. x. 35; xxvii.1; Acts vi.13; 1 Cor. iv. 6; 
xv. 15; Rom. viii. 88 (the opposite of ὑπέρ Rom. xi. 2; ef. yiii. 34; 
2Cor xiii. 8); and is the preposition usually employed to express 

358 this relation. Yet primarily it seems, like the German gegen, to 

ith ele denote merely thitherwards ; while ἀντί, like contra, includes the 
notion of hostility in its local signification even. In oaths and 
adjwrations, as in Matt. xxvi. 63; Heb. vi. 18, 16, κατὰ θεοῦ (Schaef. 
Long. p. 353 sq.; Bhdy. 238) probably means down from God, 
calling God down, so to speak, as witness or avenger (Krii. 294). 
Kiihner 11. 284 takes a different view. 

342 1. Ὑπέρ, in its local signification, denotes the being above (over) 

δὶ οἱ. 4 place (properly without immediate contact, Xen. M. 8, 8,9 ὁ 
ἥλιος τοῦ θέρους ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν καὶ τῶν στεγῶν πορευόμενος, Herod. 2, 
6,19); hence in geographical diction the expression situated above 
a place, imminere urbi, Xen. A. 1, 10,12; Thuc. 1, 137 (Dissen, 
Pind. p. 431). In the N. T. it is used only in a figurative sense ;! 
and 1) most nearly approaching its local import in 1 Cor. iv. 6 
ἵνα μὴ els ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνὸς φυσιοῦσθε, if rendered: that one be not 
puffed up above the other (so that he fancy himself raised above 
the other); still related also to the local sense, 2) to the advantage 
of, for the benefit of, for (the opposite of κατά Mark ix. 40; Rom. 
viii. 81) any one (die, suffer, pray, care, exert one’s self, etc., see 

401 Benseler, Isocr. Areopag. p. 164sq.) Jno. x. 15; xi. 50; Rom. v. 6; 
ix. 3 (cf. Xen. A. 7,4,9; Diod. Sic. 17,15; Strabo 3, 165; Eurip. 
Alcest. 700, 711), Luke xxii. 19; 2 Cor. v. 21; Phil. iv. 10; Heb. 
v.1; vii. 25; xiii. 17; Col. i. 7, 24, probably also 1 Cor. xv. 29, — 
originally as if bending over one to protect and defend him (ef. 


head) good Codd. [Sin. also] omit the preposition. As to καταχέειν κατά τινος, see 
Plat. rep. 3, 398 a.; Apollod. 2, 7, 6. 

. 1 Unless 1 Cor xv. 39 βαπτίζεσθαι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν be rendered : cause themselves to 
be baptized over the dead. The passage can only be elucidated by antiquarian research. 
It is strange, however, that Mey. should declare the above explanation inadmissible 
because ὑπέρ occurs nowhere else in the N. T. in a /ocal sense. Might not the preposi- 
tion be used in this most simple local sense in a single passage only? The comment 
of van Hengel, Cor. p. 136, is worthy of attention, though it, too, contains an arbitrary 
restriction. : 





§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 883 


μάχεσθαι ὑπέρ twos Xen. C. 2,1, 21; Isocr. paneg. 14) ;* also 
εἶναι ὑπέρ twos to be for one, Mark ix. 40; Rom. viii. 31; x. 1: 
Blume, Lycurg. p. 151. In most cases one who acts in behalf of | 
another takes his place, 1 Tim. ii. 6; 2 Cor. v. 15; hence ὑπέρ 
is sometimes nearly equivalent to ἀντί instead, loco (see, especially, 
Eurip. Alcest. 700) Philem. 13 (Thue. 1, 141; Polyb. 3, 67, 7)2 
8) Ὑπέρ denotes the subject on (over) which one speaks, writes, 
decides, etc., Rom. ix. 27; Phil. i. 7; 2 Cor. viii. 23 (see Joel i. 3; 
Plutarch. Brut. 1; Mar. 3; Plat. Apol. 39 e.; legg. 6,776; Demosth. 359 
1. phil. p. 20a.; Arrian. Al. 8, 8, 11; 6, 2,6; Arrian. Epict. 1, 1 εἰ, 
19, 26; Polyb. 1, 14,1; Dion. H. V. 625; Aeschin. dial. 1, 8; 
Aelian. anim. 11, 20 and often), or for, in reference to, which one 
gives thanks, praise, Eph. i. 16; v. 20; Rom. xv. 9, on which one 
prides one’s self, 2 Cor. vii. 4; ix. 2; xii. 5; 2 Thess. i. 4 (cf. in 
Latin super, in Hebrew by; the phrase de aliqua re loqui, too, is 
akin, see under περί) ;* hence in general, with regard to a matter, 343 
e.g. 2 Cor. i. 6,8; 2 Thess. ii. 1 ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς ὑπὲρ τῆς παρουσίας “het 
τοῦ κυρίου (cf. Xen. C. 7, 1, 17 ὑπέρ τινος θαῤῥεῖν to have full con- 
fidence in reference to one). Akin to this is the causal signification 
on account of, for the sake of, 2 Cor. xii. 8 (Hebrew ὃ», yet cf. 
Latin gratia, and Xen. OC. 2, 2,11, and even the German fiir, which 
often suits such passages and presents the same meaning under 
different aspects) Rom. xv. ὃ ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας θεοῦ (Philostr. Apoll. 
1, 35; Xen. A. 1, 7, 3, etce.), under which head come also Jno. 
xi. 4 ὑπὲρ τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ for the glory of God, gloriae divinae 
illustrandae causa, 2 Cor. xii. 19 ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν οἰκοδομῆς for your 402 
edification, Rom. i. 5; 8 Jno. T and, with a difference of application, 
Phil. ii. 13 θεός ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ... ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας because of his 
benevolence, in order to satisfy his benevolence. In 2 Cor. v. 20 
ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ πρεσβεύομεν... δεόμεθα ὑπὲρ «Χριστοῦ, probably 


1 Hence properly different from περί, which simply means, on account of one, viewed 
as the object, the cause of the death, the prayer, etc. ; see Schaef. Demosth. I. 189 sq. ; 
cf. Reitz, Lucian. VI. 642; VII. 403 sq. ed. Lehm.; Schoem. Isae. p. 234; Franke, 
Demosth. p. 6sq. In the Codd. of the*N. T. Medias as in Greek authors, the two 
prepositions are frequently interchanged, see on Gal.i.4, Rom. i. 8, and the writers them- 
selves do not adhere to the distinction. The two prepositions are appropriately used 
together in 1 Pet. iii. 18 (Eph. vi. 18). Cf. Thue. 6, 78. 

2 Still, in doctrinal passages relating to Christ’s death (Gal. iii. 13 ; Rom. v. 6, 8; 
xiv. 15; 1 Pet. iii. 18, etc.) it is not justifiable to render ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν and the like rig 
orously by instead of on account of such parallel passages as Matt. xx. 28 (Fr. Rom. 
I, 267). ᾿Αντί is the more definite of the two prepositions. Ὑπέρ signifies merely for 
men, for their deliverance ; and leaves undetermined the precise sense in which Christ 
died for them. 

ὃ So with αἰσχύνεσθαι, ἀγανακτεῖν, etc. Stall Plat. Euthyd. p. 119. 


860 


8384 § 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 


ὑπέρ means both times (see de Wette in opposition to Mey.) 707 
Christ i.e. in his name and behalf (consequently, in his stead), 
οἵ. Xen. C. 3, 3,14; Plato Gorg. 515c¢.; Polyb. 21, 14,9; Marle 
floril. p. 169 sq., see above, no. 2) at the end. Others take the second 
ὑπέρ as in solemn asseverations (Bhdy. 244, whose explanation of 
this use, however, is assuredly erroneous) by Christ, per Christum. 
In Eph. vi. 20 the phrase πρεσβεύειν ὑπέρ is used in reference to 
a thing: to act as an ambassador for the gospel (in the cause of 
the gospel), cf. Dion. H. IV. 2044; Lucian. Toxar. 34. 


§ 48, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 


a Ἔν. 1) In its local signification (see Spohn, Niceph. Blemmid. 
p- 29 sqq.), this preposition refers to an expanse within the bounds 
of which anything exists. Hence, according to different concep- 
tions of the relation, it signifies 

a) First of all im or (when applied to surfaces, heights, etc.) 


th el. on, Matt. xxiv. 40 ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, xx. 3 ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ, Luke xix. 36; 


+. 


Rey. iii, 21; Jno. iv. 20; 2 Cor. iii. 8. The same relation is fre- 


quently expressed by ἐπί with greater precision. 

b) Then (of many) among, Matt. xi. 11; Acts ii. 29; iv. 84: 
xx. 25; Rom. i. 5; 1 Cor. v.1; 1 Pet. v.1; ii. 12. With this 
is connected ἐν denoting retinue, Luke xiv. 31 ἐν δέκα χιλιάσιν 


403 ἀπαντῆσαι, Jude 14 (Neh. xiii. 2; 1 Sam. i. 24; 1 Mace. i. 17) ; 


as well as clothing (and armor, cf. Eph. vi. 16 ; Krebs, Obs. 26) 


844 Matt. vii. 15; Mark xii. 38; Jno. xx. 12 (Aelian. 9, 84; Her. 2, 
6th οἷ, 159; Callim. Dian. 241; Mtth. II. 1340). In amore general use 


év is applied to that with which one is furnished, which he brings 
with him, Heb. ix. 25 eisépyerar ἐν αἵματι, 1 Cor. iv. 21; v. 8; 
2 Cor. x. 14; Rom. xv. 29 (Xen. 6. 2, 3, 14). 

c) Less strictly in, at, sometimes of direct cohesion, Jno. xv. 4 
κλῆμα ἐὰν μὴ μείνῃ ἐν τῇ ἀμπέλῳ, sometimes of mere proximity (by, 
mapa), καθίζειν (εἶναι) ἐν δεξιᾷ θεοῦ at (on) the right hand, Heb. 
i. 3; viii. 1; Eph. i. 20; Plutarch. Lysand. 436 b.; Dio C. 216, 50 


1°Ey is used (apparently) with the Gen. in Heb. xi. 26, according to the reading 
admitted into the text by Zchm. from A and other Codd., τῶν ἐν Αἰγύπτου θησαυρῶν. 
Such constructions, by no means rare in Greek authors, must, as is well known, be 
considered as elliptical: ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτου. Usually, however, only such words as ναός, 
ἑορτή, οἶκος are omitted; and in the passage in question there is a predominance (f 
authority for τῶν Αἰγύπτου θησαυρῶν ; [so Sin. also]. As to the most ancient use of 
this preposition (in Homer), see Giseke in Schneidewin’s Philolog. VII. 77 ff 


» 


§ 48, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 385 


(much more frequently thus used in Greek authors, Xen. C. 7,1, 
45; Isocr. panath. p. 646 and Philipp. p. 216; Plat. Charm. 153 Ὁ. ; 
Diod. S. 4,78; 17,10, cf. comm. on Lucian. VI. 640 Lehm.; Jacob, 
Lucian. Alex. p. 123).! On the other hand, it signifies ix in Jno. 
x. 23 and Luke ii. 7, probably also in Jno. viii. 20, where γαζοφυλάκ. 
denotes the treasury as an apartment (or locality), and Luke 
xiii. 4, as it was usual to say im Siloam, because the fountain was 
surrounded with buildings ; perhaps also Matt. xxvii. 5, see Mey. 
in loc. That in forms of quoting, as ἐν Δαυΐδ Heb. iv. 7; Rom. 
ix. 25 (in Cie. or. 71; Quint. 9, 4, 8) and even Rom. xi. 2 ἐν ᾿Ηλίᾳ 
(see van Marle and Fr. in loc. cf. Diog. L. 6, 104), év should be 
rendered by in, is obvious. 

d) Before, apud, coram (Isocr. Archid. p. 276; Lysias pro mil. 
11; Arriam. Epictet. 3, 22, 8; Ast, Plat. legg. 285), —a rendering, 
however, which is unnecessary in 1 Tim. iv. 15 (where, besides, 
πᾶσιν must be read without ἐν). This meaning, however, it bears 
in 1 Cor. ii. 6 (xiv. 11), see above, § 31, 8 (cf. Demosth. Boeot. 
p. 636 a.; Polyb. 17, 6,1; 5, 29,6; Appian. civ. 2, 187),? also 
1 Cor. vi. 2 ἐν ὑμῖν κρίνεται ὁ κόσμος (in the orators é ὑμῖν is 
often used thus for apud vos, judices, see Kypke in loc.), as well 
as ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς τιν. before one’s eyes (ante oc.), see Palair. and 361 
Elsner on Matt. xxi. 42—a phrase used in this passage of the Sept. 1 et 
figuratively. 

2) By an easy transition ἐν is employed to denote temporal 404 
relations, where we use sometimes in, sometimes on (e.g. of festi- 
vals) Matt. xii. 2; Jno. ii. 23, sometimes αὐ (with a substantive 
denoting an event) Matt. xxii. 28; 1 Pet. i. 7, also 1 Cor. xv. 52 
ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ σάλπιγγι at the last trumpet (as soon as it sounds), 
1 Thess. iv. 16; Heb. iii. 8,and with the Inf. of verbs, Matt. xiii. 25; 
Luke ix. 36; xvii. 11. Where it signifies within (Wex, Soph. 
Antig. p. 167) Jno. ii. 19 it may also be rendered by in (Her. 2, 29), 
and differs then obviously from διά ; for ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις (Plato 


1 To render ἐν ἡ in Heb. ix. 4 by jurta quam, would be to favor archeology at the 
expense of grammar. § Where ἐν in a local sense is joined to personal names (in the 
- Plur.), it signifies not so much with as among, in the midst of, (a number, a company, 
etc.). As tol Pet. v.2 τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ποίμνιον, Pott’s rendering is quite admissible: the 
flock existing in the countries where you reside (cf. διά Rom. xv. 28). Grammatically it 
would be possible also to join τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν to ποιμάνατε (quantum in vobis est, as much 
as in you lies), or, which would undoubtedly be far-fetched, to render τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ποίμνιον 
the flock entrusted to you, as εἶναι, κεῖσθαι ἔν τινι means, to rely on, depend on, one. 

2 In explaining 1 Cor. as above, Riickert pronounces ἐν ἐμοί exactly the same as ἐμοί 
—one of those superficial remarks which, so nakedly stated, one could hardly have 
expected from a scholar at the present day. 

49 


¢ 
386 § 48, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 


345 Menex. 240 Ὁ.) does not mean that three whole days are to be 

sth ed. spent on something, but only that something is to take place within 
that space of time, consequently before its expiration. Cf. besides, 
ἐν ᾧ while, during the time that, Jno. v. 7; Mark ii.19; Thue. 6,55; 
Plato Theaet. 190 e.; Soph. Trach. 925 (ἐν τούτῳ interea Xen. 
C.1, 3,17; 3, 2,12), ἐν οἷς during which Luke. xii. 1. Closely 
related to the temporal signification is the ἐν of subsistence (i.e. 
positive and continued existence) Heb. vi. 18 ἐν οἷς ἀδύνατον Ψεύ- 
σασθαι θεόν whereupon, these two assurances being matters of 
fact, etc., Rom, ii. 12 ἐν νόμῳ ἥμαρτον under (during the existence, 
while in possession, of) the law ; — also of condition, Luke viii. 48 
γυνὴ οὖσα ἐν ῥύσει αἵματος, Rom. iv. 10; Phil. iv. 11 (see Elsner 
in loc. ; Kihner 11. 274), and that, too, inward, Luke iv. 36; Tit. i. 6, 
particularly of the state of mind or feeling, 1 Tim. ii. 2; 2 Cor. 
ii. 1; viii. 2; Luke i. 44,75; Eph. i. 4 (Heb. xi. 2); 2 Pet. ἢ. 8; 
lastly, —the ἐν of occupation, 1 Tim. iv. 15 ἐν τούτοις ἴσθι, Col. 
iv. 2 cf. Eph. vi. 20 (Mey. in loc.), neut. ἐν οἷς Acts xxvi.12. Cf. 
Xen. C. 3, 1,1; 5,2,17; Soph. Oed. R. 570; Plato Phaed. 59 a. 
and Stallb. in loc. 

83) The figurative use of ἐν, to which we have already made 
some incidental reference, is extremely diversified, perceptibly 
exhibiting the progressive deterioration of the language as well | 
as a Hebrew coloring. For ἐν is used to indicate not merely that 
in which something else is (ideally) contained, consists, appears 
1 Pet. iii. 4; Eph. iv. 8 Gi. 15), 2 Thess. ii. 9 (1 Cor. xi. 25), 
Phil. i. 9, but also, with great variety of application, 

a) The basis on which, or the sphere (range, personal or imper- 
sonal) in which, some power acts, 1 Cor. igg15 ἵνα οὕτω (vs. 13 f.) 
γένηται ἐν ἐμοί that it should be so done on me (in my case), iv. 2, 

405 6 ἐν ἡμῖν μάθητε learn in us, Jno. xiii. 85 ἐν τούτῳ γνώσονται, Xen. 
C. 1, 6, 41 (Luke xxiv. 35; 1 Jno. 111. 19), Rom. xiv. 22 ὁ μὴ 
κρίνων ἐν ᾧ (ἐν τούτῳ ὃ) δοκιμάζει, 1 Thess. v. 12 κοπιῶντες ἐν ὑμῖν 
who labor upon you, Rom. i. 9 λατρεύειν ἐν τῷ εὐωγγελίῳ (1 Thess. 
iii. 2 συνεργὸς ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ var.), 1 Cor. vii. 15; to denote an 
ethical relation, 2 Cor. iv. 2 περιπατοῦντες ἐν πανουργίᾳ (Eph. ii. 3,. 

862 10; v. 2), Rom. vi. 2 ξὴν ἐν ἁμαρτίᾳ (Fr. in loc.), Col. iii. 7 (Cic. 

thed fom. 9, 26), cf. 1 Cor. vi. 20; 2 Thess. i. 10; 1 Jno. ii. 8; ina 
more extended sense, of the object in (on, at) which one rejoices, 
glories etc., χαίρειν, καυχᾶσθαι, ἐν see ὃ 33 p. 282. 

b) The measure or standard (Thue. 1. 77; 8, 89) in, according 

to, which something is executed, Eph. iv. 16 (Heb. iv. 11), cf. the 


§48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 387 


Hebrew 2. Many understand it so in Heb. x. 10 ἐν ᾧ θελήματι 
ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμέν according, in conformity, fo which will. Here, 
however, ἐν is more precise than κατά: It is founded tn the will 
of God, that we are sanctified through Christ’s sacrificial death. 
In no other passage does the meaning secundum occur, although 
even the most recent N.T. Lexicons give copious examples in 
support of it. Ἔν ἐμοί according to my judgment, 1 Cor. xiv. 11, 
is properly: to me (in my conception) cf. Wex, Antig. p. 187. In 
Rom. i. 24; viii. 15; xi. 25 (var.); Phil. ii. 7 ἐν denotes condi- 
tion. 1 Thess. iv. 15 may be translated: this I say unto you in 
a word of the Lord, cf. 1 Cor. ii. 7; xiv.6. In περιπατεῖν ἐν σοφίᾳ 
and similar phrases, σοφία is not represented as a rule according 
to which, but as an ideal possession, or even a sphere within which 
to walk (see-above). To understand ἐν Χριστῷ, ἐν κυρίῳ. as mean- 
ing according to the will or example of Christ, would be to take 
a flat view of the apostle’s conception. Lastly, 1 Tim. i. 18 ἵνα 
στρατεύῃ ἐν αὐταῖς (ταῖς προφητείαις) τὴν καλὴν στρατείαν is 
probably to be interpreted, conformably to the figure, 7m proph- 
esyings, equipped with them so to speak (as the actual warrior 
is in arms). 

6) The (external) occasion, Acts vii. 29 ἔφυγεν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ 
at (on) this saying, Xen. equestr. 9,11; hence sometimes the 
ground, cause, Matt. vi. T ἐν τῇ πολυλογίᾳ αὐτῶν εἰςακουσθήσονται 
on account of their much speaking (properly on their etc.), ef. 
Aelian. anim. 11, 31; Dio C. 25, 5, and ἐν τούτῳ Jno. xvi. 30 there- 
Jore,! probably also 1 Cor. iv. 4 (οἵ, Plutarch. glor. Athen. ¢. 7 ἐν 
τούτοις) ; ἐν @ (for ἐν τούτῳ ὅτι) because Rom. viii. 8 see Fr. In 
many languages, however, a concomitant is assigned thus as a 
cause: in Latin, propter strictly means near; and the German 
weil (because) is properly a particle of time (during). ᾿Εν in 


1In Heb. xi. 2 ἐν ταύτῃ (τῇ πίστει) denotes not the ground, but the (ideal) posses- 
sion : in hae (constituti), cf. 1 Tim. v. 10 (Jno. viii. 21). In Heb. ii. 18 ἐν ᾧ πέπονθεν 
is undoubtedly to be resolved by ἐν τούτῳ ὅ in eo quod, see above p. 159. This same 


_ meaning occurs in 1 Pet. ii.12. In Heb. vi. 17 ἐν ¢ may be referred to ὅρκος preceding, 


though (as sometimes ἐφ᾽ ¢) the rendering quapropter, quare, would not be inappropriate. 
In Rom. ii. 1 ἐν ᾧ may be rendered dum, or better, with the Vulgate, in quo (in qua re) 
juilicas etc., which gives a sense quite in point, ef. Fr. In Luke x. 20 ἐν rotrw ... ὅτι 
means, at this (rejoice) that, ef. Phil.i. 18. I am not aware of there being in any Greek 
author an unquestionable instance of ἐν τούτῳ, ἐν &, in the sense of therefore, because. 
The passages adduced in Sturz, Lexic. Xenoph. II. 162, admit of another meaning. Xen. 
A. 1,3, 1—a passage which Kypke, IT. 194, refers to this head — has in the best editions 


346 
Gth ed, 


406 


ἐπὶ τούτῳ. Likewise Plat. rep. 5, 455b., where Ast explains ἐν & by propterea quod, is- 


susceptible of another exposition ; see Stallb. in loc. 


888 § 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 


863 the sense of propter is never joined to names of persons (see my 
Τὰ ed. Comment. ad Gal. i. 24, οἵ, Exod. xiv. 4) ;! and in general too many 
passages have been referred to this head, as Eph. iii. 13; Jno. 
vill. 21; Jas. i. 25; 2 Cor. vi. 12; Heb. iv. 11. 
d) The instrument and means (principally in the Rev.), not 
merely (as in the better Greek prose authors, see Bttm. Philoct. 
p- 69; Boeckh, Pind. II. 487; Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 195, and the 
uncritical collections in Schwarz, Comment. p. 476; Georgi, Vind. 
153 sq.) where the German in also (or au’) is admissible, as καίειν 
847 ἐν πυρί Rev. xvii. 16 (1 Cor. iii. 13), cf. 1 Mace. v. 44; vi. 31 
Shel. (δῆσαι ἐν πέδαις Xen. A. 4, 8, 8; ef. Judg. xv. 13; xvi. 7; Sir. 
xxvill. 19; Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 104, καλύπτειν ἐν ἱματίῳ Ael. anim. 
11, 15), μετρεῖν ἐν μέτρῳ Matt. vii. 2, ἁλίζειν ἐν Grate Matt. v. 13; 
Rey. vii. 14; Jas. iii. 9; Heb. ix. 22, but also, through the influence 
of the Hebrew 3, in circumstances quite different from this, where 
in Greek authors the Dative would be employed alone as the casus 
instrumentalis, as Luke xxii. 49 πατάσσειν ἐν μαχαίρᾳ, Rev. vi. 8 
_— ἀποκτεῖναι ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ, xiii.10; xiv. 15 κράζειν ἐν μεγάλῃ φωνῇ (2 Pet. 
ii. 16), Matt. vii. 6 καταπατεῖν ἐν τοῖς ποσίν, Luke i. 51; Mark 
407 xiv.1; Rom. xv. 6, especially in the Rev. (cf. Judg. iv.16; xv. 15; 
xx. 16, 48; 1 Kings xii. 18; Josh. x. 35; Exod. xiv. 21; xvi. 3; 
xvii. 5,13; xix.13; Gen. xxxii. 20; xli. 36; xlviii. 22; Neh.i.10; 
1 Mace. iv. 15; Judith ii. 19; v. 9; vi. 4,12, etc.).2 Yet such 
constructions occasionally occur even in Greek authors; as, Himer. 
eclog. 4, 16 ἐν ξίφει, Hippocr aphor. 2, 36 ἐν φαρμακείῃσι καθαί- 
864 ρεσθαι, Malal. 2 p. 50.3 ᾿Εν is so used with personal designations, 
Tth ed, 


1In 2 Cor. xiii. 4 ἀσθενοῦμεν ἐν αὐτῷ, as frequently ἐν Χριστῷ (so variously under- 
stood by expositors), denotes fellowship with Christ, the relation of εἶναι ἐν Χριστῷ 
(see below, p. 389). The apostle is not weak for Christ’s sake (out of regard as it were 
for the interest of Christ, to prevent the possible falling away of the Corinthians) ; but 
weak in Christ, i.e. in and conformably to (apostolic) fellowship with Christ (who 
likewise was in a certain sense ἀσθενής ; see what precedes). The phrase designates 
concisely a state which results from being in Christ ; just as the ζῆν and δυνατὸν εἶναι are 
referred to fellowship with Christ (σύν). _ Just as little does Eph. iv. 1 ὁ δέσμιος ἐν κυρίῳ 
mean the prisoner for Christ’s sake. Somewhat more remote is Phil. i. 8 ἐπιποθῶ πάντας 
ὑμᾶς ἐν σπλάγχνοις Χριστοῦ Ἶ., see Bengel. 

2 It would be a mistake to suppose that in Eph. ii. 15 (δ 81, note 1, p. 220) and vi. 4 ἐν 
denotes the instrument. In the latter passage παιδεία καὶ νουθεσία κυρίου is the sphere 
in which the children are trained, ef. Polyb. 1,65, 7. Even in the expression ἀλλάσσειν 
τι ἔν τινι Rom. i. 23, I cannot with Fr. adopt the meaning per, nor do 1 think that the 
Hebrew 3 with """2M is to be so understood. 700 change something in gold is either an 
abbreviated expression, or gold is conceived as that in which the exchange is effected. 
The ἐν of price is similar ; see above and p. 390. 

8 Many passages that might be adduced under this head from Greek authors, are to 


§ 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 889 


Matt. ix. 34 ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων ἐκβάλλειν τὰ δαιμόνια, Acts 
xvii. 51 κρίνειν év ἀνδρί in ἃ man, cf. Thuc. 7, 8,2; Mtth. I. 1341, 
not Jno. xvii. 10; 2 Thess. i. 10, or by any means Acts xvii. 28.1 
The phrase ὀμόσαι ἔν τινι Matt. v. 34 ff. does not signify jurare per 348 
(see Fr. in loc.), but more simply: swear by (on) something. So ‘te. 
Te ha ; Fe, 408 
likewise in other passages ἐν does not properly signify through: 
1 Cor. vii. 14 ἡγίασται ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ ἄπιστος ἐν TH γυναικί means, he 
τ is sanctified in the wife, — the foundation rather than the means 
of sanctification being indicated. In Rom. xv. 16 ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ 
and not διὰ mv. ay. is employed designedly, i the Holy Spirit 
(an internal principle). Related to this is 1 Cor. xv. 22 ἐν τῷ 
᾿Αδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνήσκουσι, Acts iv. 2 ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τὴν 
ἐκ νεκρῶν καταγγέλλειν. Least of all does ἐν Χριστῷ (κυρίῳ) ever 
signify per Chr. (Fr. Rom. I. 397, the precise expression for which 
is διὰ "Ino. Xp.), Rom. vi. 11 ζῶντες τῷ θεῷ ἐν Xp. *I. (the Chris- 
tian lives not merely through Christ, beneficio Christi, but in Christ, 
in soul-nourishing fellowship with Christ), vi. 25; 2 Cor. ii. 14; 
but this phrase invariably refers, for the most part in an abbre- 


be otherwise explained, as ὁρᾶν ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς Lucian. Phalar. 1,5, ἐν ὄμμασιν ὑποβλέπειν 
Lucian. amor. 29 (cf. Wer, Antig. I. 270), Porphyr. de antro Nymphar. p. 261 ἀμφορέων, 
ἐν ols ... ἀρυόμεθα, Lucian. asin. 44 ὡς τεθνηκὼς ἐν ταῖς πληγαῖς (under the blows), Plat. 
Tim. 81 ¢. τεθραμμένης ἐν γάλακτι brought up on milk (ef. Jacobs, Athen. p. 57). In 
Lucian. conser. hist. 12 for ἐν ἀκοντίῳ φονεύειν recent editors on the authority of MSS. 
give ἑνὶ ἀκ. φ. ; on the other hand, in Lucian. dial. mort. 23, 3 all the Codd. but one 
have καθικόμενον ἐν τῇ ῥάβδῳ (not so Ael. 2, 6), yet Lehmann considers the preposition 
even in this passage as suspicious (cf. Lucian. Lapith. c. 26). See, besides, Engelhardt, 
Plat. Menex. p. 261; Dissen, Pind. p. 487. 

1 Τῇ Jno. xvii. 10 δεδόξασμαι ἐν αὐτοῖς undoubtedly signifies more than δι᾽ αὐτῶν. He 
would have been glorified through them, if they had merely accomplished some external 
achievement conducive to the glory of Christ ; he is glorified in them, in so far as they 
in their own persons, in themselves, glorify Christ. In the same way to live and have 
one’s being in God, appears to express man’s subsistence, his being rooted as it were, 
in the divine power, with greater precision than could be done by διά. When ἐν and 
διά are joined together in one and the same sentence, διά expresses thus the external 
means, while ἐν points to what was wrought in or on one’s person, and as it were cleaves 
to him, Eph. i. 7 ἐν ᾧ (Χριστῷ) ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ (where 
Mey. is wrong), iii. 6. Even when things, and not persons, are in question, the dis- 
tinction between ἐν (referring to mental states or powers) and διά (of the means) is 
perceptible; as, 1 Pet. i. 5 τοὺς ἐν δυνάμει θεοῦ θρουρουμένους διὰ πίστεως, see Steiger in 
loc., i. 22 ἡγνικότες ἐν τῇ ὑπακοῇ τῆς ἀληθείας διὰ πνεύματος, Heb. x. 10. Lastly, pas- 
sages in which ἐν and διά in reference to things are interchanged in the same proposition, 
Col. i. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 4 ff. 8; 1 Cor. xiv. 19, merely show that both prepositions are 
identical as respects the sense. Even ἐν in Matt. iv. 4 ἐν παντὶ ῥήματι does not appear 
to be exactly equivalent to ἐπί in ἐπ᾽ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ; but the latter (ἐπί) denotes the basis, 
ἐν the (spiritual) element, of life. At all events, through or by means of would be an 
inaccurate translation. 


890 § 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 


viated way, to the being in Christ εἶναι ἐν Χριστῷ (1 Thess. ii. 14; 

Rom. viii. 1; xvi.11; 2 Cor. v.17; Gal. i. 22), and Luther’s 

“ barbarous ”’ translation (Fr. 11. 85)! is to be retained. So like- 

wise in 1 Cor, xii. ὃ ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν is to be rendered quite 
365 literally, speaking in the Spirit of God, the element in which the 
Τὰ el. speaker lives (Rom. ix. 1; xiv. 17; Col. i. 8). 

6) The price, after the analogy of the Hebrew, Rev. v. 9 ἀγο- 
ράζειν ἐν τῷ αἵματι (1 Chron. xxi. 24). The value of the thing 
purchased is contained in the price (to which the ἐκ of ‘the price 
then corresponds). 


Even in the most recent Lexicons the significations of this preposition 
have been unwarrantably multiplied or its real significations incorrectly 
applied to passages of the N.T. The interpretations which have been 
given to the phrase ἐν ὀνόματί τινος in particular are Protean. The ἐν here 
causes no difficulty, for it simply means 7m. And something takes place 
‘in a person’s name’ when it is comprehended or embraced in his name, 
is to be set down to his personal activity, cf. Acts iv. 7 (not to his who is 
the nearest, the immediate, subject, cf. Jno. v. 43). Only the various verbs 
which are limited by ἐν ὀνόματι require the expositor’s attention, in order 
that the various senses may be traced back severally in the simplest 
manner to the literal meaning of the phrase. This task has not yet 
been performed satisfactorily (yet better by Harless, Eph. S. 484, than by 
van Hengel, Philip. p. 161 sq.), not even by Mey. Phil. ii. 10 seems to 
require separate treatment: ὄνομα here refers to ὄνομα in vs. 9, and ἐν 
ὀνόματι denotes the name upon which those that bow the knee unite, on 
which united all (πᾶν γόνυ) worship. The name which Jesus has received 

‘moves all to united adoration. In Tit. iii. 5 ἐν does not indicate the jinis 

or consilium; but ἔργα τὰ ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ mean, works performed in the 
409 spirit of a δίκαιος ; as to Luke i. 17; 1 Cor. vii. 15 see below. In Mark 
ix. 50 εἰρηνεύετε ἐν ἀλλήλοις, the rendering erga is not necessary ; we, too, 


1 In so far as the Christian abides (by faith) in living (inward, hence ἐν) fellowship 
with Christ, he will do everything in the consciousness of this fellowship, and through 
the strength which this fellowship confers, i.e. in Christ, in the Lord ; as a Christian, 
in a Christian spirit, ete., as the words are frequently rendered, expresses much less than 
the pregnant phrase in Christ. So in Rom. xvi. 12 who labor in the Lord, conscious of. 
their fellowship with the Lord (unworldly κοπιᾶν is meant), 1 Cor. xv. 18 who fell asleep 
in Christ, in conscious, steadfast fellowship with Christ (ef. 1 Thess. iv. 16; Rev. xiv. 13), 
Rom. ix. 1 (a passage which even Bengel misunderstood) speak the truth in Christ (as 
one living in Christ), xiv. 14 persuaded in the Lord (of a truth of which one in living 
union with Christ is assured). As to 1 Cor. iv. 15 see Mey. In the same way εὑρίσκε- 
σθαι ἐν Xp. Phil. iii. 9 is to be explained. See besides, Rom. xv. 17 ; xvi. 2,22; 1 Cor. 
vii. 39; Phil. iv. 1 (Eph. vi. 1),1 Pet. v.10. Fr. Rom. II. 82 sqq@ is essentially right, 
though his remarks are not free from misapprehensions nor from unnecessary mattcr 
See, besides, v. Hengel, Cor. p. 81. 


§ 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 891 


say: among (one another) yourselves. The following interpretations appear 
still more inadmissible : 

a. ex, Heb. xiii. 9 ἐν οἷς οὐκ φφελήθησαν οἱ περιπατήσαντες unde (Schott) 
nihil commodi perceperunt (cf. ὠφελεῖσθαι ἀπό Aeschin. dial. 2,11). If ἐν 349 
ols is to be joined to ὠφελήθ., the preposition indicates the profit that would bth od. 
have originated therein or attached thereto, Xen. Athen. rep. 1, 8; Demosth. 
Pantaen. 631 a.; but ἐν ots belongs to περιπατήσαντες. Matt.i.20 τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ 
γεννηθέν means, that which has been begotten tn her (in ejus utero). 

b. pro, loco, Rom. xi. 17 (Schott) évexevrpio Ons ev αὐτοῖς (κλάδοις) means: 366 
grafted on the branches (of which some had been cut off). Tih od. 

c. with. In Acts xx. 82 ἐν τοῖς ἡγιασμένοις signifies, among (with) the 
sanctified. Acts vii. 14 μετεκαλέσατο τὸν πατέρα αὑτοῦ Ἰακὼβ ... ἐν ψυχαῖς 
ἑβδομ. means, (consisting) in seventy souls; 3 is used in the same way 
in Deut. x. 22; Ido not, however, know of an instance in a Greek author. 
Fr.’s explanation of these words (ad Mr. p. 604) appears to me too far- 
fetched, and it has been rejected by Wahl also. In Eph. vi. 2 ἥτις ἐστὶν 
ἐντολὴ πρώτη ἐν ἐπαγγελίᾳ undoubtedly means not merely, annexa, addita 
promissione, but the first in promise, 1.6. in point of promise (not ἐν τάξει 
Chrysost.). So also Mey. 

ἃ. by (of). In Eph. iv. 21 εἴγε ἐν αὐτῷ ἐδιδάχθητε tf ye were taught in 
him is closely connected with ἀποθέσθαι etc. following, and consequently 
means, conformably to fellowship with Christ,.as believers in Christ. 

As to é for εἰς, see § 50, no. 4, p. 413 sq. 


Ὁ. Suv with as distinguished from μετά indicates a more inti- 
mate union; as, among persons, partnership in calling, faith, 
fortune, etc. Acts ii. 14; xiv. 4, 20; 1 Cor. xi. 32. Hence it is 
generally used in reference to spiritual fellowship, as that of be- 
lievers with Christ, Rom. vi. 8; Col. ii. 13, 20; iii. 3; 1 Thess. 
iv. 17; v.10; or that of believers with Abraham, Gal. iii. 9 
(σύν denoting in all these cases not mere resemblance, but actual 
association). Then in reference to things it denotes powers com- 
bining and co-operating with a person, 1 Cor. ν. 4; xv. 10. It 
would be extended to a less intimate connection in 2 Cor. viii. 19 
with the collection ; yet here ἐν seems the preferable reading. On 410 
the other hand, cf. Luke xxiv. 21 σὺν πᾶσι τούτοις τρίτην ταύτην 
ἡμέραν ἄγει σήμερον along with all this, i.e. joined to all this is the 
additional fact that etc. (Neh. v. 18; ef. Joseph. antt. 17, 6, δ). 


1 Fischer, Weller. p. 141, adopts this meaning even for πίνειν ἐν ἀργύρῳ, χρυσῷ ete. 
(Isocr. paneg. c. 30; Diog. L. 1, 104, bibere in ossibus Flor. 3, 4,2). With equal 
reason might it be asserted that in German auf is the same as von because we say auf 
silbernen Tellern essen, which, according to the analogy of ‘aus silbernen Bechern 
trinken,’ is equivalent to ‘ von silbernen Tellern.’ 

2 Krii. 287 “ σύν τινι denotes rather coherence ; μετά twos, rather co-existence.” 


892 § 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 


9. "Eri. The primary, local, import is wpon, above, (applied 
both to heights and plains) :! Matt. xiv. 11 ἠνέχθη ἡ κεφαλὴ ἐπὶ 
πίνακι, Mark i. 45 ἐπ᾽ ἐρήμοις τόποις (see above, ἐπί with Gen.; ef. 
ἀνάγειν eis τὴν ἔρημον Matt. iv. 1), vi. 89; Luke xxi. 6; Rev. 
xix. 14, also Jno. iv. 6 ἐπὶ τῇ πηγῇ on (at) the well (the rim of 
the well rises above the well itself), Rev. ix. 14 (Xen. An. 1, 2, 
850 8; 5,3,2; Cyr. 7,5, 11; Isocr. paneg. c. 40; Dio C.177, 30; see 
th ol. above, δ 47 g¢.).2, Sometimes it signifies at (on) Juno. v. 2 ἐπὶ τῇ 
367 προβατικῇ at the sheep-gate, Acts iii. 10,11; Matt. xxiv: 33 ἐπὶ 
ith od. θύραις (Xen. C. 8,1, 33, yet see note ὃ p. 374); it is applied also in 
this sense to persons, Acts v. 85 πράσσειν τι ἐπί τινι inflict some- 
thing on one (do something to), ef. δρῶν τι ἐπί τινι Her. 8, 14; 
Ael. anim. 11,11. Lastly, it, signifies (contiguity) at, with either 
in reference to place (apud) Acts xxviii. 14 ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐπιμεῖναι, 
or to time Heb. ix. 26 ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων sub finem mundi ; 
and so Phil. i. 3 εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ ὑμῶν on every 
remembrance of you, Mark vi. 52 οὐ συνῆκαν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἄρτοις, 2 Cor. 
ix. 6 σπείρειν, θερίζειν ἐπ᾽ εὐλογίαις with blessings, so that blessings 
attend ; and in another application in Heb. ix. 15 τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ 
διαθήκῃ παραβάσεων with (under) the first covenant (during the 
existence of the first covenant). In this sense it is applied also 
to persons, Heb. x. 28 (Sept.) ἐπὶ τρισὶ μάρτυσι with (before) three 
witnesses, adhibitis testibus. It likewise indicates what is closely 
connected (in time), what follows on some event, Xen. C. 2, 3, 7 
ἀνέστη ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ Φεραύλας directly after (Appian. civ. 5,3; Paus. 
7, 25,6; Dio C. 325, 89, and 519, 99; cf. Wurm, Dinarch. p. 39 sq. ; 
Ellendt, Arrian. Alex. I. 30). Some explain in this way Acts 
xi. 19 ἀπὸ τῆς θλίψεως τῆς γενομένης ἐπὶ Στεφάνῳ (see Alberti 
in loc.) ; but ἐπί there means rather wpon (on account of) or 
against (Matthai in loc.), ef. Schaef. Plutarch. V. 17; Maetzner, 
Antiph. p. 288. ; 
411 Figuratively ἐπί denotes, in. general, the foundation on which 
an action or state rests, Phil. iii. 9; so in Matt. iv. 4 ζῆν ἐπ᾽ ἄρτῳ 
Sept. (corresponding to ἐν ῥήματι) after the Hebrew bz nn Deut. 


1 According to Krii. 303 ἐπί with Gen. indicates rather an accidental and more loose 
connection ; ἐπί with Dat., the notion of belonging to. 

2 The signification upon is perceptible also in Luke xii. 58 ἔσονται... πατὴρ ἐφ᾽ υἱῷ 
καὶ vids ἐπὶ πατρί the father will be upon him, that is, as a load, oppressing, agreeably 
to the vulgar idiom; cf. the German, Vater und Sohn liegen sich auf dem Halse. 
Against, however, here expresses the meaning correctly. I cannot, ‘however, decide 
with Wahl to apply the same meaning to Luke xxiii. 38. Rom. x. 19 is of quite a 
different sort. 


§ 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 393 


viii. 3 (though it is thus used also in Greek authors, Plato Alcib. 
1, 106 ο. ; Alciph. 3, 7; cf. suwstentare vitam). Here belongs also 
ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί τινος (Lucian. pisc. 15; cf. Schoem. Isae. p. 463 sq.) 
to do something wpon the name of some one, i.e. in doing it to 
rely upon, or have reference to, the name of some one. The ex- 
pression has various applications in the N. T.: ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Inc. 
Xp. to teach upon (in) the name of Christ (Luke xxiv. 47; Acts 
iv. 17; v. 28, 40), 1.6. by referring to him as the source of doctrine 
and authority; to cast out demons upon (in) the name of Christ, 
Luke ix. 49, i.e. making the efficacy of the exorcising depend on 
his name (uttered on the occasion as a solemn form) ; baptism 
upon (in) the name of Christ is baptism founded on the acknowl- 
edgment of his name, Acts ii. 38; to receive any one upon (in) 
the name of Christ, Matt. xviii. 5, 1.6. because he bears his name, 
confesses him, etc. 

Special senses of ἐπί are 

a) Over, of superintendence, Luke xii. 44 ἐπὶ τοῖς ὑπάρχουσι 
καταστήσει αὐτόν, cf. Xen. C. 6,3, 28 (as elsewhere with Gen. 
Lob. Phryn. p. 474 sq.). 

b) Over, to, of addition to something already existing, Luke 
iii. 20 ἡροςέθηκε καὶ τοῦτο ἐπὶ πᾶσι, Matt. xxv. 20 ἄλλα πέντε 
τάλαντα ἐκέρδησα ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς in addition to those five talents (if ἐπ᾽ 351 
αὐτοῖς is genuine), Luke xvi. 26 ἐπὶ πᾶσι τούτοις besides, over and ‘th ed 
above, all this, Lucian. conscr. hist. 31; Aristoph. plut. 628 (cf. 
Wetsten. and Kypke in loc.), Phil. ii. 17; Col. iii. 14; Eph. vi. 16 
(ef. Polyb. 6, 23,12). Hence in Jno. iv. 27 ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἦλθον of 368 
μαθηταί upon this, as Jesus spoke thus with etc., came the dis- tthed 
ciples. It is used somewhat differently in 2 Oor. vii. 13 ἐπὶ τῇ 
παρακλήσει περισσοτέρως μᾶλλον ἐχάρημεν besides my consolation, 

I rejoiced, ete. 

c) Over, of the object after verbs denoting an emotion, as 
θαυμάξειν, ἀγαλλιᾶν, πενθεῖν, λυπεῖσθαι, ὀργίζεσθαι, [μακροθυμεῖν], 
μετανοεῖν, Luke i. 47; xviii. 7; Mark iii. δ; xii. 17; Matt. vii. 28. 
Rom. x. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 21; Rev. xii. 17; xviii. 11 (Plat. symp. 
217 a. and 206 b.; Isocr. paneg. 22; Lucian. philops. 14; Aristot. 
rhet. 2,10,1; Palaeph.1,8; Joseph. antt. 5,1, 26a.). With edya- 
ριστεῖν it signifies to give thanks over (for), 1 Cor.i.4; 2 Cor.ix. 15; 
Phil. i. 3 sq.; Polyb. 18, 26,4. It is also employed with verbs of 
speaking, Rev. x. 11 προφητεῦσαι ἐπὶ λαοῖς (xxii. 16 var.), Jno. 
xii. 16 ταῦτα ἣν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ γεγραμμένα (Her. 1, 66; Paus. 3,13, 3; 412 
ef. Schoemann, Plut. Agis p. 71). 

50 


394 § 48, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 


d) On, of a supposition or condition (Xen. symp. 1, 5; Diod. 
8. 2, 24; Lucian. ¢onser. hist. 38; Aesop. 21,1): ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι on 
(in) hope, 1 Cor. ix. 10 (Plat. Alcib. 1, 105b., ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίσι Dio 
Chr. 1003, 21; Herod. 3, 12, 20), Heb. ix. 17 ἐπὶ νεκροῖς (on 
one’s death) after men are dead, when death has taken place.! It 
is used also of motive, Luke v. 5 ἐπὶ τῷ ῥήματί cov χαλάσω τὸ 
δίκτυον on thy word, induced by thy word, Acts iii. 16 ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει 
on account of the faith, xxvi. 6; Matt. xix. 9 (1 Cor. viii. 11 
var.) ;7 cf. Xen. Mem. 3, 14,2; Cyr. 1, 38,16; 1,4, 24; 4,5,14; 
Her. 1, 137; Lucian. Hermot. 80; Isocr. areop. 8336; Dio Chr. 
29,293. Hence ἐφ᾽ 6 wherefore, on which account, Diod. 8. 19, 98 
(ἐφ᾽ ᾧπερ Dio C. 48, 95, etc.), and because 2 Cor. v. 4; Rom. 


“> w.12; probably also Phil. iii. 12 (on this account that, for ἐπὶ τούτῳ 


ὅτι see Fr. Rom. I. 299 sq.), 60 quod. 

6) To, for, of aim and issue, 1 Thess. iv. 7 οὐκ ἐκάλεσεν ἐπὶ 
ἀκαθαρσίᾳ to uncleanness, Gal. v. 13 (like καλεῖν ἐπὶ ξενίᾳ Xen. 
An. 7, 6, ὃ, and the like; see Sintenis, Plutarch. Them. p. 147), 
2 Tim. ii. 14; Eph. ii. 10, ef. Xen. An. 5, 7, 34; Mem. 2, 8, 19; 
Plat. rep. 8, 889 Ὁ. ; Diod. S. 2,24; Arrian. Alex. 1, 26,4; 2, 18, 
9; Diog.-L. 1, 7,2; ef. Index to Dio C. ed. Sturz p. 148 sq., ac- 
cording to some ἐφ᾽ ᾧ Phil. iii. 12 wnto which (for which). 

f) After, of the rule, model, Luke i. 59 καλεῖν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι 
after the name (Neh. vii. 63). To this head, probably, belongs 


+ 352 also Rom. v. 14 ἐπὲ τῷ ὁμοιώματι τῆς παραβάσεως ᾿Αδάμ ad (Vulg. 
bihed. an) similitudinem peccati Ad.; for other explanations, see Meyer. 
369 2 Cor. ix. 6, however, we cannot with Philippi (Rém.- Br. 8. 172) 
ithel. understand in the same way; see above, p. 392. 


When ἐπί with Dat. in a local sense is joined to a verb of direction or 
motion (Matt. ix. 16; Jno. viii. 7, not Matt. xvi. 18; Acts iii. 11), the phrase 


413 includes together with the idea of motion that of tarrying and resting also. 


. 


ἃ. Παρά beside i.e. properly near, at the side of, used of place, 
with the Dative of the thing only in Jno. xix. 25 (Soph. Oed. C. 


1 Yet several of these passages may be referred to the more general signification at, 
with (see above), as is done by Fr. Rom. I. 315. 

2’ Απολεῖται ὁ ἀσθενῶν ἀδελφὸς ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ γνώσει (where, however, good authorities 
[Sin also] read ἐν) is, properly, perishes on thy knowledge i.e. because thy knowledge is 
urged, — briefly, through thy knowledge. But ἐπί does not therefore, as Grotius Rom. 
y. 12. maintains, strictly mean through. 

8 The Greeks usually employ the Plural, ἐφ᾽ οἷς (but ἐπὶ τῷδε Ellendt, Arrian. Al. 1. 
211). Rothe (Versuch iiber Rém. v. 12ff. p. 17ff.) has recently asserted that in the 
N. T. this ἐφ᾽ ¢ should be uniformly rendered on the supposition, on the understanding, 
‘on condition, that, in as far as. There is no passage, however, in which this would not 
be artificial and forced ; cf. Rickert, Comment. zu Rom. 2 Aufl. I. 262. 


848. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 395 


1160; Plato Ion 535 b.), elsewhere with the Dat. of the person 
(Krii. 299) ; sometimes denoting 

a) What is externally near, by, with, Luke ix. 47, or what is 
in one’s vicinity, province, custody, 2 Tim. iv. 13 φελόνην ἀπέλιπον 
παρὰ Κάρπῳ, 1 Cor. xvi. 2 (Aristot. pol. 1, 7), Luke xix. T (where 
παρὰ ἁμαρτ. belongs to. καταλῦσαιν, Col. ἵν. 16; Rev. ii. 18; Acts 
x. 6; xviii. 3. Sometimes, and more frequently, 

b) In reference to what is ideally near one, in one’s possession, 
power, capacity, etc. (penes); as, Matt. xix. 26 παρὰ ἀνθρώποις 
τοῦτο ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν, παρὰ δὲ θεῷ πάντα δυνατά, Rom. ii. 11 οὐ 
γάρ ἐστι προςωποληψία παρὰ θεῷ, ix. 14; Luke i. 87 (παρὰ τοῦ 
θεοῦ is a clerical mistake) ef. Demosth. cor. 352 ἃ. εἴ ἐστι παρ᾽ ἐμοί 
τις ἐμπειρία, Jas. i. 17; 2 Cor. i. 17, especially of the judgment, 
Acts xxvi. 8 ti ἄπιστον κρίνεται παρ᾽ ὑμῖν etc. (apud vos), Rom. 
xii. 16 μὴ γίνεσθε φρόνιμοι παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς (Prov. iii. 7) before your- 
selves (as judges), in your own estimation, in your own eyes, 
1 Cor. iii. 19 ; 2 Pet. iii. 8 (Her. 1, 32; Plato Theaet. 170d. ; 
Soph. Trach. 586; Eurip. Bacch. 399, and Electr. 737; Bhdy. 257). 
So likewise 2 Pet. ii. 11 οὐ φέρουσι κατ᾽ αὐτῶν παρὰ κυρίῳ (before 
the Lord as Judge) βλάσφημον κρίσιν were the words 7. κυρ. 
genuine, and, substantially, 1 Cor. vii. 24 ἕκαστος ἐν ᾧ ἐκλήθη, ἐν 
τούτῳ μενέτω παρὰ θεῷ with, before God, on the plane of God's judg- 
ment. That παρά with the Dat. denotes strictly direction towards} 
cannot be established (Wahl in his Clav.) by Luke ix. 47, still less 
by Luke xix. 7 (see a) above). 

6. Πρός has the same primary import as παρά, but is used in 
the N. T. only in its local sense: at, by, in the (immediate) vicin- 
ity of ; as, Jno. xviii. 16 πρὸς τῇ θύρᾳ, xx. 11,12; Mark v.11 (to 414 
adduce instances of the same use of πρός from Greek authors 
would be superfluous; for the assertion of Miinter, Symbol. ad 
intptat. ev. Joa. p. 31, is untrue). So likewise Rev. i. 13 περίε- 
ζωσμένος πρὸς τοῖς μαστοῖς ζώνην girded about at the breasts with 
a girdle (Xen. C. 7, 1, 33). In Luke xix. 87 ἐγγίζοντος ἤδη πρὸς 
τῇ καταβάσει τοῦ ὄρους τῶν ἐλαιῶν is to be rendered: as he was 370 
already close to ete. (In the Sept. πρός with the Dative occurs The. 
much more frequently than in the N. T.) 

f. Περί and ὑπό are never used in the N. T. with the Dative. 

1 If παρά with the Dat. is employed with a verb of motion, the same attraction must 
be acknowledged which occurs when ἐν is so used. But in Xen. A. 2, 5, 27, which 
Kiihner adduces as the only instance, recent editors on the authority of Codd. give 
παρὰ Τισσαφέρνην. On the other hand, see Plutarch. Themist. c. 5 and Sintenis in loc. 


It cannot, however, be denied that in the Dative itself the notion of whither is originally 
contained (p. 214). Cf. Hartung iber ἃ. Casus. 8. 81. 


896 § 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE 


853 849. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 
6th od, 

a. Eis (the opposite of ἐκ Rom. i. 17; v. 16). 

a) In the local sense it denotes not merely into, in among (Luke 
x. 86; Acts iv. 17, likewise Mark xiii. 14 eis τὰ ὄρη as we say, into the 
mountains), or (of countries and cities) ¢o (into) Matt. xxviii. 16; 
Acts x.5; xii. 19, etc., but also (of levels) on Mark xi. 8 ἔστρωσαν 
eis τὴν ὁδόν, Acts xxvi. 14; Rev. ix. 3, and even simply ¢o (ad), 
thitherward (of motion or direction) Mark iii. 7 (Polyb. 2, 23, 1), 
Matt. xxi. 1; Jno. xi. 38 ἔρχεται eis τὸ μνημεῖον cometh to the 
tomb, cf. vs. 41; iv. 5 cf. vs. 28; xx. 1 οἵ, νβ. 11; Actsix.2; Luke 
vi. 20 ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς eis τοὺς μαθητάς towards his disciples, 
Rev. x. 5 (εἰς tov οὐρανόν) Xen. Cyr. 1, 4,11; Aeschin. dial. 2, 2. 
In reference to persons it hardly signifies to (πρός or ὡς Μάν. 88 ; 
Bhdy. 215), but among, inter, Acts xx. 29; xxii. 21; Luke xi. 49; 
Rom. v. 12; xvi. 26; Plato Prot. 349a.; Gorg. 526b. (when it 
occasionally approaches the import of the Dative, Luke xxiv. 47, 
see above, ὃ 31, 5);1 in one passage, into a person’s house, Acts 
xvi. 40 εἰςῆλθον eis τὴν Avédiav (according to many [minuscule] 
Codd.) see Valcken. in loc. cf. Lys. orat. 2 in. Strabo 17, 796; 
Fischer, Well. II. II. p. 150; Schoem. Isae. 363, and Plutarch. 
Agis p. 124, (but the better Codd. [Sin. also] give πρός). 

415 b) Applied to time, εἰς signifies sometimes a point, limit for, at 
which Acts iv. 3 (Herod. ὃ, 5, 2), or up to, tall which, Jno. xiii. 1; 
2 Tim. i: 12;? sometimes a period (for, during, like ἐπέ) Luke 
xii. 19 εἰς πολλὰ ἔτη (Xen. M. 38, 6, 18). 

9) Used tropically, of ideal relations, it denotes any aim or end; 
as, Acts xxviii. 6 μηδὲν ἄτοπον eis αὐτὸν γινόμενον unto, towards 
(on) him, cf. Plut. Moral. p.786c¢.; hence, a. the measwre, amount 
(Bhdy. 218) which something reaches, 2 Cor. x. 18 εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα 
καυχᾶσθαι, iv. 11 (Lucian. dial. mort. 27, 7), cf. also the well- 
known εἰς μάλιστα and eis tpis.  B. the condition into which 
something is brought, Acts ii. 20; Rev. xi. 6; Heb. vi. 6; ef. like- 

871 wise Eph. ii. 21f. =. the result, Rom. x. 10 (xiii. 14), 1 Cor. 
Τὰ οἱ, 53.17 εἰς τὸ κρεῖττον συνέρχεσθε. δ. the direction of the feelings 


1 Likewise in 1 Cor. xiv. 36; 2 Cor. x. 14 εἰς is more appropriate than πρός, inasmuch 
as in all these passages ideal reaching to one (his knowledge or intercourse with him) 
is spoken of. 

2 (The more expressive) ἕως (or μέχρι) is oftener used in this sense; and many 
passages adduced in Lexicons under the signification usque ad are not purely temporal, 
but include the εἰς of purpose, aim, Gal. iii. 17, 23 ; Eph. iv. 30. 


§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 397 


views, etc. and the deportment towards (erga and contra), 1 Pet. 
iv. 9 φιλόξενοι εἰς ἀλλήλους, Rom. viii. 7 (Her. 6, 65), xii. 16 ; 
Matt. xxvi. 10; 3 Jno. 5; Col. iii. 9; 2 Cor. viii. 24; x.1; Luke 
xii. 10, to which sense likewise Col. i. 20 ἀποκαταλλάττειν τι εἰς 
avrov may be referred (cf. διαλλάττειν πρός twa Demosth. ep. ὃ, 354 
p. 114; Thue. 4, 59 etc.) ;1 further, the direction both of the 6th ed 
thoughts, Acts ii. 25 Aavid λέγει εἰς αὐτόν aiming at (referring to) 
him (dicere in aliquem, ef. Kypke in loe.), Eph. i. 10; v. 82; Heb. 
vii. 14; cf. Acts xxvi. 6,2 and of the desires (after something) Phil. 
i. 23 and of the will in general; and then, the occasion Matt. 
xii. 41 εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα ᾿Ιωνᾶ at the preaching; the purpose and 
end in view (Bhdy. 219) Luke v. 4 χαλάσατε τὰ δίκτυα ὑμῶν εἰς 
ἄγραν for a draught (to catch), 2 Cor. ii. 12 ἐλθὼν eis τὴν Τρωάδα 
εἰς TO evayyéduov for the gospel i.e. in order to publish it, Acts 
ii. 88 ; vii. 5; Rom. v. 21; vi. 19; viii. 15; ix. 21; xiii. 14; xvi. 19; 
Heb. x. 24; xii. 7; 1 Pet. iv. 7; 2 Pet. ii.12; 2 Cor. ii. 16; vii. 9; 
Gal. ii. 8; Phil. i. 25 (eis ὅ for which Col. i. 29; 2 Thess. i. 11; 
ef. 1 Pet. ii. 8, εἴς τὶ Matt. xxvi. 8). In this way are explained 
also the phrases ἐλπίζειν, πιστεύειν εἴς τινα, as well as the passages 
in which εἰς relating to persons signifies for, Rom. x. 12 πλουτῶν 
eis πάντας, Luke xii. 21; 1 Cor. xvi. 1 etc. (and thus borders on 
the Dat. see a) above), and lastly, the looser connections where 
eis is rendered in reference to, as respects, with regard to (Bhdy. 4164 
220; Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 484) Acts xxv. 20; 2 Pet.i.8; Rom. 
iv. 20; xv. 2 (of things, Xen. Mem. 3, 5,1; Philostr. Apoll. 1, 16), 
2 Cor. xi. 10; Eph. iii. 16; iv. 15; Rom. xvi. 5 (of persons). 
Sometimes subjective and objective purpose, aim and effect, cannot 
be separated, Heb iv. 16; Luke ii. 34; Rom. xiv. 1; Jude 21. 
The German zu, for, to, includes both.? Further, cf. § 29, 8 note. 


The following alleged significations of εἰς are to be rejected: Sub (Rom. 
xi. 82 cf. Gal. iii. 22) ; eis here retains the signification of in, as we can 
say included im just as well as under; With (of the instrument), in Acts 
xix. 3 εἰς τὸ Ἰωάννου βάπτισμα (ἐβαπτίσθημεν) is a direct answer to the 
question εἰς τί οὖν é€BarricOynre; strictly the answer should have been, 
unto that unto which John baptized. The expression is abbreviated there- 


1 It is not necessary to consider this phrase pregnant, as Fr. Rom I. 278 does. It 
is obviously founded on the same conception as the expression preferred by Greek 
authors διαλλάττειν πρός τινα. 

2 Likewise ὀμόσαι εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα Matt. ν. 35 is substantially to be referred to this 
signification ; see Fr. in loc. 


8 But in Jno. iv. 14 ἁλλομένου els ζωὴν αἰώνιον is probably to be rendered into, though 
BCrusius is of a different opinion. 


898 8 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 


fore, or rather, inexact. Nor can εἰς be strictly rendered before, coram 
in Acts xxii. 30 (see Kiihn6l), cf. Heind. Plat. Protag. 471; Stallb. Plat. 


372 symp. p. 43.sq.; but ἔστησαν (αὐτὸν) εἰς αὐτούς is: introduced (placed) 
ith eds him among them, in the midst (εἰς μέσον). In 2 Cor. xi. 6 ἐν παντὶ φανε- 


ρωθέντες εἰς ὑμᾶς is very nearly: towards you (erga), as elsewhere πρός is 
used. That εἰς is ever equivalent to διά with Gen. is a fiction ; and εἰς 
διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων Acts vii. 53 is most simply rendered upon the injunctions 
of angels (which, indeed, as respects sense amounts to in consequence of 
such injunctions), unless the interpretation proposed ὃ 32, 4 b. p. 228 be 
preferred. As to εἰς for ἐν see ὃ 50, 4, p. 414 sq. 


355 Ὁ. "Ava upon, up along! (Bhdy. 233 f.), occurs in the N. T. 
θὰ αἰ. chiefly in the phrase ἀνὰ μέσον with Gen. of place, through the 


midst of, (in) between, Mark vii. 31; Matt. xiii. 25, and figura- 
tively with Gen. of a person, 1 Cor. vi. 5 διακρῖναι ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ 
ἀδελφοῦ. Then, with numerals, in a distributive sense; as, Jno. 
ii. 6 ὑδρίαι χωροῦσαι ava μετρητὰς δύο ἢ τρεῖς containing two or 
three metretae aprece, [ Matt. xx. 9], Luke ix. 3; x.1; Mark vi. 40 
(where Lehm. [and Tdf.] following Codd. B. [Sin.] give κατά) ; 
so frequently in Greek authors. The preposition thus gradually 
assumes the nature of an adverb (Bhdy. 234). This distributive 
signification probably grew out of such phrases as ava πᾶν ἔτος 
every year, year by year. 


417 Hug, in the Freiburger Zeitschr. VI. 41 f., proposed to render the above 


10) ἐ, Ain ve 


passage from John: containing about two or three metretae; but he has 
not succeeded in establishing such a use. In Polyb. 2, 10, 3 and Dio 
Cass. 59, 2 ἀνά manifestly signifies each, apiece. In Polyb. 1, 16, 2 nobody 
will believe that the writer intended to state the strength of the Roman 
legion indefinitely, as merely ‘about’ 4000 foot and 300 cavalry. In Her. 
7, 184 ἀνὰ διηκοσίους ἄνδρας λογιζομένοισι ἐν ἑκάστῃ νηΐ is a pleonastic ex- 
pression, similar to others of frequent occurrence — 200 apiece ... in each 
ship, (at the rate of etc.). Rey. iv. 8 ἕν καθ᾽ ἕν αὐτῶν ἔχον ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ 
is similar. Moreover,the Greeks use ἐπί with the Acc. to express about, 
Jor, a numerical amount. 





c. Διά with the Acc. indicates the ground (ratio), not the design 
(not even in 1 Cor. vii. 2),? and signifies on account of (even in 


1 Hm. de partic. ἄν p.5: Primum ac proprium usum habet in iis, quae in al. rei 
superficie ab imo ad summum eundo conspiciuntur: motus enim significationem ei 
adhaerere quum ex eo intelligitur, quod non est apta visa quae eum verbo εἶναι com- 
poneretur, tum docet usus ejus adverbialis, ut ἀλλ᾽ ἄνα ἐξ ἑδράνων. Further, ef. Spitzner 
de vi et usu praepositt. ἀνὰ et κατά. Viteb. 1831. 

2 That is to say, it is only per consequens that the notion of design is implied in διὰ 
τὰς πορνείας : on account of fornications let every man have his own wife. Fornications are 


§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 399 


Jno. vii. 43; x. 19; xv. 8 etc.), or, when the motive of an action 

is meant, out of, from, Matt. xxvii. 18 dua φθόνον out of (from) 

envy, Eph. ii. 4 διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην (Diod. 8.19, 54 διὰ τὴν 

πρὸς τοὺς ἠτυχηκότας ἔλεον, Aristot. rhet. 2, 18 ; Demosth. Conon. 

730c.). As to Rom. iii. 25, which even Reiche has misunder- 373 

stood, see Bengel. In Heb. v. 12 διὰ τὸν χρόνον is, on account thd. 

of the time, considering the time (you have enjoyed Christian 

instruction ;1 not, as Schulz renders it, after so long a time). 
Sometimes διά with Acc. denotes apparently the means (ground 

or motive and means are very closely connected, cf. Demosth. cor. 

354a.; Xen. M. 8, 3,15; Liv. 8, 53; and in the poets διά is 

sometimes used with the Acc. even in a local sense, see Bhdy. 

236): Jno. vi. 57 κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα καὶ ὁ τρώγων με ζήσεται 356 

δ ἐμέ, just as in Long. pastor. 2 p. 62 Schaef. διὰ τὰς νύμφας δὶ ob 

ἔζησε, Plut. Alex. 668e. But the passage strictly means, J live 

by reason of the Father, that is, because the Father lives, cf. Plat. 

conv. 203 e.; Fr. Rom. I. 197, who adduces as parallel Cic. Rose. 

Am. 22, 63 ut, propter quos hanc suavissimam lucem adspexerit, 

eos indignissime luce privaret. Passages more or less similar are 

Demosth. Zenoth. 576a.; Aristoph. Plut. 470; Aeschin. dial. 1, 2; 418 

Dion. H. TI. 1579; οἵ Wyttenb. Plut. Mor. II. p. 2 Lips. ; Sintenis, 

Plutarch. Themist. 121; Thuc. ed. Poppo 111. I. 517. But Heb. 

y. 14; vi. 7 by no means belong here, nor (as de Wette and Ewald 

still maintain) Rev. xii. 11 ἐνίκησαν διὰ τὸ αἷμα, οἷ, vii. 14 and 

what immediately follows, καὶ οὐκ ἠγάπησαν τὴν ψυχήν etc. As 

to Rom. viii. 11 (where the reading, indeed, varies) see Fr., and 

as to Jno. xv. ὃ Mey. in loc. In 2 Cor. iv. 5; Heb. ii. 9; 2 Pet. 

ii. 2 (where Schott still renders it by per, which gives a false sense 

even; Bengel otherwise) Rev. iv. 11, διὰ is quite appropriately 

translated for the sake of. So too in Rom. viii. 20? (where Schott 

has peragain). But in Rom. xv.15 διὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι 


the ground of this regulation, inasmuch as they are to be prevented. In Greek authors 
also design sometimes in the same way attaches itself to διά ; see the annotators on 
Thue. 4, 40 and 102. 

1 The phrase is used thus, essentially, in Polyb. 2, 21, 2 and elsewhere, see Bleek on 
the above passage. Schulz insists in applying the temporal sense of διά to Heb. ii. 9 
likewise. But διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου means, on account of the suffering of death, 
and is elucidated from the well-known connection, recognized by the apostolic writers, 
_ between the sufferings and the exaltation of Christ. 

2 Here διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα constitutes an antithesis to οὐχ ἑκοῦσα, not voluntarily, but 
by reason of him that subjected,—by the will and command of God. Probably Paul 
intentionally avoided saying διὰ τοῦ ὑποτάξαντος, equivalent to ὁ θεὸς ὑπέταξε αὐτήν. 
Adam’s sin was the proper and direct cause of the ματαιότης. 


400 § 49, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 


the preposition must not, in consideration of xii. 8 διὰ τῆς χάριτον 
τῆς δοθείσης μοι, be understood in this sense ; both expressions are 
proper. 1 Jno. ii. 12 is correctly rendered by Liicke. 2 Pet. ii. 2 
needs no comment. In 2 Pet. iii. 12 δ ἥν may be referred to ἡ 
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμέρα, and translated on account of; yet if referred to 
παρουσία, as is done by Bengel, it gives sense. Lastly, in Gal. 
iv. 13 δι’ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός is probably not to be understood 
(Schott) of the state, condition (δ ἀσθενείας, but means: on 
account of weakness, owing to a weakness ; see Mey. 
d. Κατά. The local (primary) meaning is, 
a) down upon (down along, ef. Aeschin. dial. 8,19), passing 
374 on, through, over (Xen. C. 6, 2, 22); as, Luke viii. 39 ἀπῆλθε καθ᾽ 
Tthed. ὅλην τὴν πόλιν κηρύσσων, XV. 14 λιμὸς κατὰ τὴν χώραν throughout 
the country, all over the country, Acts viii. 1 (2 Mace. iii. 14; 
Strabo 8, 163); Acts v. 15 ἐκφέρειν κατὰ τὰς πλατείας through the 
streets, along the streets, viii. 36 (Xen. An. 4, 6, 11), Luke ix. 6; 
xiii, 22; Acts xi. 1; xxvii. 2 (Xen. Ὁ. 8, 1, 6, Raphel. in loc.)." 
Uniformly of horizontal extension. So even in Acts xxvi. 3 τὰ 
419 κατὰ τοὺς ᾿Ιουδαίους ἔθη καὶ ζητήματα the customs etc. extendina 
throughout the Jews (common among the Jews).? 
357  b) on to, towards, Phil. iii. 14 (κατὰ σκοπόν towards the mark), 
6th ed. Acts viii. 26; xvi. 7; Luke x. 82 (Aesop. 88,4; Xen. C. 8,8, 17) 1 
likewise merely of the direction (geographical position, versus), 
Acts ii. 10 τῆς Διβύης τῆς κατὰ Κυρήνην, xxvii. 12 λιμένα βλέποντα 
κατὰ λίβα (Xen. An. 7, 2, 1). Accordingly, κατὰ πρόςωπόν τινος 
signifies to one’s face i.e. before one’s eyes, Luke ii. 81 ; Acts iii. 13; 
so also κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς Gal. iii. 1 (Xen. Hist. 1, 14 like κατ᾽ ὄμμα 
Eurip. Androm. 1064, κατ᾽ ὄμματα Soph. Ant. 756). Likewise in 
Rom. viii. 27 κατὰ θεὸν ἐντυγχάνειν does not mean (in a local 
sense) apud deum, but, properly, towards God, before God.’ 


1 Κατά in its local signification is not properly synonymous with ἐν (as even Kiihndl 
on Acts xi. 1 asserts). Κατὰ τὴν πόλιν means, throughout the city ; καθ᾽ ὁδόν along the 
road, on the road (as on aline). Even κατ᾽ οἶκον, where the primary meaning recedes 
farthest from view, is used to express a different conception from ἐν οἴκῳ (as zu Hause, 
at home is different from im Hause, in the house). Besides, κατά has established itself in 
many phrases where probably ἐν might have been used. 

2 Hence comes the meaning with, among, as of καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς ποιηταί Acts xvii. 28, ef. 
xiii. 1 and other passages; see above, p. 193. Kard with a personal pronoun is em- 
ployed thus, especially in later authors, as merely a circumlocution for a possessive 
pronoun; see Hase, Leo Diac. p. 230. 

8 Against this explanation, adopted also by Fr. Krehl and others, various objections 
have recently been raised, particularly by Mey. and Philipn. The most unimportant 
of all is that then κατ᾽ αὐτόν would be used. The emphasis implied in the substantive 


§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 401 


Closely connected with this is the temporal use of the preposition, 
sometimes as in Acts xvi. 25 κατὰ τὸ μεσονύκτιον towards midnight, 
and sometimes as in Matt. xxvii. 15 καθ᾽ ἑορτήν during the festival, 
i. 20 κατ᾽ ὄναρ during a dream, secundum quietem (Herod. 2, 7, 6, 
κατὰ φῶς by daylight Xen. C. 3, 3, 25, κατὰ βίον Plato, Gorg. 488 a.), 
Heb. ix. 9 also iii. 8 (Sept.) κατὰ τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ πειρασμοῦ in the 
day etc., and κατὰ τὸ αὐτό at the same time Acts xiy. 1. 

Hence it is employed of both place and time in a distributive 
sense, first with plural nouns, as κατὰ φυλάς by tribes, Matt. xxiv. T 
κατὰ τόπους, Acts xxii. 19, κατὰ δύο in pairs 1 Cor. xiv. 27 (Plato, 
ep. 6, 828 9.), Mark vi. 40 var.; afterwards frequently with singular 
nouns, as in Acts xv. 21 κατὰ πόλιν from city to city (Diod. 8. 

19, 77; Plutarch. Cleom. 25; Dio Chr. 16,461; Palaeph. 52, 7), 
κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτόν yearly Heb. ix. 25 (Plato, pol. 298e.; Xen. C. 8, 6, 375 
16, κατὰ μῆνα Xen. An. 1,9, 17; Dio C. 750, 74), καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ith od. 
daily Acts ii. 46; 1 Cor. xvi. 2 (Hm. Vig. 860).1 

Used figuratively κατά is the preposition of reference and direc- 420 
tion to something: either generally, as in Eph. vi. 21 τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ 
quae ad me pertinent, Acts xxv. 14, or in limitation of a general 
expression (Her. 1, 49; Soph. Trach. 102 and 379) Eph. vi. 5 of 
κατὰ σάρκα κύριοι as respects the flesh, so far as concerns the flesh, 
Rom. ix. 5 ἐξ ὧν (Ιουδαίων) ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα (1 Pet.iv.14), 
Acts ili. 22; Rom. vii. 22 also xi. 28 and xvi. 25; or specially 

a) the measure, the standard, according to, in conformity to, 
as in Eph. iv.7; Matt. xxv. 15; Jno. ii.6; Luke ii. 22 κατὰ νόμον, 
Heb. ix. 19 (Xen. Cyr. 5, 5, 6), Acts xxvi. 5; Rom. xi. 21 κατὰ 358 
φύσιν, Matt. ix. 29 κατὰ τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν according to your faith, δὰ 
as it deserves, 2 Cor. iv. 13; Rom. ii. 2 κατὰ ἀλήθειαν, Matt. ii. 15 
κατὰ χρόνον according to the time. Hence it denotes similarity, 
sort (pattern), Heb. viii. δῇ, συντελέσω ... διαθήκην καινήν, od κατὰ 
τὴν διαθήκην, ἣν ἐποίησα etc. (1 Kings xi. 10), Acts xviii. 14. 
Likewise with names of persons κατά twa usually signifies accord- 
ing to some one’s opinion Col. ii. 8 (Eph. ii. 2) ; 2 Cor. xi. 17, or 
will Rom. xv.5; 1 Cor. xii. 8; cf. Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 91, or 


is easily felt, and is indicated visibly, too, by the position of κατὰ θεόν, though the point 
of principal moment lies in ὑπὲρ ἁγίων. The translation, according to God, introduces 
an entirely unnecessary idea into the passage, since of the Spirit no different intercession 
can be thought of. 

‘ Also καθ᾽ ἑαυτόν for one’s self is usually referred to, this use (see e.g. Passow), but 
erroneously, as the phrase is not distributive. Καθ' ἑαυτόν, and the like, properly means 
in reference to one’s self, whereby something is restricted to a single subject; hence for 
one’s self, adv. seorsum. As to ἔχειν x. ἑαυτόν, see Fr. Rom. III. 212. 


402 § 49, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 


according to some one’s pattern and example, as in Gal. iv. 28 
κατὰ ᾿Ισαάκ in the same way as Isaac, ad exemplum Isaaci, 1 Pet. 
i. 15; Eph. iv. 24 (Plato, Parm. 120 ο. ; Lucian. pisc. 6,12; eunuch. 
13 ; Dio C. 376, 59; cf. Kypke and Wetst. on Gal. as above, Marle, 
floril. p. 64sq.). It is used of authors: τὸ κατὰ MarOaiov εὐωγγέ- 
λίον the gospel (the evangelic history) as recorded by Matthew 
(according to Matthew’s understanding and exposition of it). 
As to εἶναι κατὰ σάρκα, κατὰ πνεῦμα Rom. viii. 5, see the expositors. 
In the (Pauline) phrase κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον after the manner of man, 
in (ordinary) human fashion, (with contexts of various descrip- 
tions), κατά is used more generally: Rom. iii.5; Gal. i. 11; 
iii. 15; 1 Cor. ix. 8; 1 Pet. iv. 6 (see Wiesing. in loc.), see Fr. 
Rom. I. 159sq.1_ Cf. in connection with the same use of κατά, 
421 Rom. iv. 4 κατὰ χάριν by way of grace, 1 Cor. ii. 1 καθ᾽ ὑπεροχὴν 
376 λόγου, Phil. iii.6; Eph. vi.6; Rom. xiv. 15; Acts xxv. 23 ἀνδράσι 
Τὰ ed. τοῖς κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν τῆς πόλεως. 

b) the occasion (and the motive), a sense closely allied to the 
preceding (hence in Rom. iv. 4 κατὰ χάριν may be rendered also, 
of (out of ) grace), Matt. xix. ὃ ἀπολῦσαι τὴν γυναῖκα κατὰ πᾶσαν 
αἰτίαν for every cause, on every ground (Kypke in loc., οἵ, Paus.4, 
10,2; 6,18; 2, 7), Rom. ii. 5; Actsiii. 17 κατὰ ἄγνοιαν ἐπράξατε 
in consequence of ignorance (Raphel. in loc.), Phil. iv. 11 οὐχ ὅτι 
καθ᾽ ὑστέρησιν λέγω from (in consequence of suffering) want, Tit. 
iii. 5; 1 Pet. i. 8 κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ édeos,? Eph. i.5; Her. 9,17 (κατὰ 
τὸ ἔχθος) etc. cf. Diog. L. 6,10; Arrian. Al. 1,17,13. Also in Heb. 
xi. 7 ἡ κατὰ πίστιν δικαιοσύνη the righteousness which proceeds 
from faith. : 

c) the intention, purpose, for, to (Jno. ii. 6), 2 Tim. i. 15% Tit. 
i. 1 (ef. Rom. i. 5 eds), and the (necessary) result, 2 Cor, xi. 21 


1 In 2 Cor. vii. 9, 10 λυπεῖσθαι κατὰ θεόν and λύπη k. θ. is not sorrow produced by 
God (Kypke in loc.), but, as Bengel aptly says, animi Deum spectantis et sequentis, to 
sorrow according to God i.e. after the mind and will of God. In the passage that 
follows Paul might in the same way have written 7 κατὰ τὸν κόσμον λύπη. But ἡ 
τοῦ κόσμον λύπη has ἃ meaning somewhat different: the sorrow of the world, i.e. as 
the world (those who belong to the world) possesses and experiences it (of course about 
the things of the κόσμος). Bengel in like manner has duly appreciated the difference 
between these two expressions. In 1 Pet. iv. 6 κατὰ ἀνθρώπους means after the manner 
of men, and is more closely defined by the annexed σαρκί; just so κατὰ θεόν means 
after the manner of God, which is more closely defined by πνεύματι (for God is πνεῦμα). 

2 Accordingly κατά sometimes stands parallel to the Dat. ( instrum.), as in Arrian. 
Al. 5, 21, 4 κατ᾽ ἔχθος τὸ Πώρου μᾶλλον ἢ φιλίᾳ τῇ ᾿Αλεξάνδρου. ‘See Fr. Rom. 1..99. 

8 Matthies gives an artificial exposition with the remark that it cannot be shown that 
κατά expresses object. This import, however, is very naturally involved in the original 
meaning of this preposition. Moreover, see Mth. 1356, 1359. 


Soon 


8 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 408 


κατ᾽ ἀτιμίαν λέγω to (as a, by way of) reproach (Her. 2, 152; 
Thue. 5,7; 6,31). The signification cwm must be rejected, 
though κατά may sometimes be translated with. In Rom x. 2 359 
ζῆλος θεοῦ GAN οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπέγνωσεν is zeal for God, but not according 6th αἱ. 
to knowledge, i.e. not as zeal resulting from knowledge manifests 
itself (ef. above, κατ᾽ ἄγνοιαν), 1 Pet. iii. 7. In Heb. xi. 13 κατὰ 
πίστιν ἀπέθανον etc. means: they died in (according to) faith, 
without having received ete.; it was in accordance with faith 
(with the nature of πίστις) that they died having seen only from 
afar the fulfilment of the promises. The idea of κατὰ πίστιν is 
contained in the second participial clause. . 

e. Ὑπέρ with Acc. signifies beyond, away-over (Her. 4, 188; 
Plato, Crit. 108 6. ; Plut. virt. mul. p. 231 Lips.). In the N.T. it 
never occurs in reference to place, but is always used figuratively, 
beyond, over and above in number, rank, quality ; as, Acts xxvi. 13 
φῶς περιλάμψαν ... ὑπὲρ τὴν λαμπρότητα τοῦ ἡλίου. Matt. x. 24 
οὐκ ἔστι μαθητὴς ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον, Philem. 16; Matt. x. 37 ὁ 
φιλῶν πατέρα ὑπὲρ ἐμέ (Aesch. dial. 3,6), 2 Cor. i. 8 (Hpict. 31, 
87) ; Gal. i. 14, also 2 Cor. xii. 18 τί γάρ ἐστιν, ὃ ἡττήθητε ὑπὲρ 
τὰς λουπὰς ἐκκλησίας inferior beyond the other churches (gradation 422 
downwards). Concerning ὑπέρ after comparatives, see ὃ 35, 1. 

f. Mera denotes motion into the midst of something, Iliad 2, 376. 
Then it signifies motion after, behind, something ; in prose, how- 
ever, it more frequently means behind, after (post) of a state of 
rest, Heb. ix. 3 wera τὸ δεύτερον καταπέτασμα (Paus. 3,1,1). In 
all other passages of the N. T. where it occurs it signifies after in 
regard to time, (the opposite of apo), even in Matt. xxvii. 63 
— where the popular expression presents no difficulty, see Krebs, 
obs. p. 87 sq. —and 1 Cor. xi. 25 μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, which must 377 
not, in consideration of Matt. xxvi. 26 (ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν, be ithel. 
rendered by during ; on the other hand, cf. Luke xxii. 20. So 
too, the familiar expression μεθ᾽ jyuépav,interdiu (Ellendt, Arrian. 

Al. 4, 18, 10) properly denotes post lucem, after daybreak. 

g. Παρά. The primary import is beside, along, of a line or 
extended space, Matt. iv. 18 περιπατῶν παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν ... 
εἶδε etc. walking along the sea-side (Xen. C. 5, 4,41; A. 4, 6,4; 

6, 2,1; Plato Gorg. 511e.), xiii. 4 ἔπεσε παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν fell (along) 
by the wayside, Then it is used also of a point of space, — 
belonging, however, to an extended object; as, ἔρχεσθαι παρὰ τὴν 
θάλασσαν. to the sea-side Matt. xv. 29; Acts xvi. 18, ῥίπτειν or 
τιθέναι παρὰ τοὺς πόδας τ. to beside the feet Matt. xv. 30; Acts 


404 § 49, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 


iv. 353; cf. Held, Plutarch. Timol. 356. It is used only thus also 
with verbs of rest,! as of sitting, standing, lying, (being situated) 
παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν or τὴν λίμνην or παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν (propter mare, 
.. Viam) Matt. xx. 80 ; Luke v. 1sq.; xviii. 35; Heb. xi.11; Acts 
x. 6 ᾧ ἐστιν οἰκία παρὰ θάλασσαν (vs. 32), cf. Ken. A. 8, 5,1; 7, 
2,11; Paus. 1, 38,9; Aesop. 44,1; Hartung d. Casus S. 83. 
360 Further, παρά means beside the mark or aim, and consequently 
δὲν οἱ, (as the context may determine), sometimes above, as in Rom. 
xii. 8 (to which Fr. compares Plutarch. Mor. 83 f. θαυμασταὶ παρ᾽ 
ὃ δεῖ), sometimes below, as in 2 Cor. xi. 24 πεντάκις τεσσαράκοντα 
παρὰ μίαν forty (with the omission of one) less one, Joseph. antt. 
4, 8,1 (cf. Heb. ii. 7 Sept.), Bhdy. 258. In the former sense it 
is used figuratively, 

a) in comparisons, as in Luke xiii. 2 ἁμαρτωλοὶ παρὰ πάντας 

423 above all (more than all, see ὑπέρ, cf. § 85, 2 b.), iii. 13; Heb. i. 9 
(Sept.) ; iii. 8 (Dio Cass. 152,16; analogous to which is ἄλλος 
παρά 1 Cor. iii. 11 other than, equivalent to the ordinary ἄλλος ἤ, 
ef. Stallb. Phileb. 51); Rom. xiv. 5 κρίνειν ἡμέραν παρ᾽ ἡμέραν 
to judge (esteem) one day above another, i.e. to prefer one day to 
another. 

b) against: Acts xviii. 13 παρὰ νόμον (Xen. M.1,1,18; Lucian. 
Demon. 49); Rom. i. 26 παρὰ φύσιν (praeter naturam Plat. rep. 
5, 466 ἃ. ; Plut. educ. 4,9); iv. 18 παρ᾽ ἐλπίδα (praeter spem, 
Plato pol. 295d.) ; xvi. 17; Heb. xi. 11 (Thue. 3,54; Xen. A. 2, 
5,41; 5, 8,17; 6,4, 28; Philostr. Apoll. 1, 38) ; compare the 
expressions overstep, transgress, the law. The opposite would be: 
κατὰ φύσιν ete., cf. Xen. M. as above, Plut. educ. 4, 9. 

c) in Rom. i. 25 παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα with the omission of the 
Creator (consequently, instead of the Creator). In one passage 
παρά indicates the ground or reason: 1 Cor. xii. 15 [16] παρὰ 
τοῦτο therefore, strictly with (beside) this, since this is so, Weber, 
Demosth. p. 521 (Plut. Camill. 28; Dio C.171, 96; Lucian. paras. 

378 12 and often). In Latin, as is well-known, propter (from prope, 

Τῷ ed. of propter flumen) became the ordinary causal preposition, (Vig. 
p- 862; Vkm. Fritzsche, quaestion. Lucian. p. 124 sq.; Maetzner, 
Antiph. p. 182). ; 

h. Πρός to, towards, with verbs of motion or mere direction 
(Acts iv. 24; Eph. iii. 14; 1 Cor. xiii. 12 πρόςωπον πρὸς πρόςωπον 


1 Such expressions as Polyb. 1, 55, 7 ἐν τῇ παρὰ τὴν ᾿Ιταλίαν κειμένῃ πλευρᾷ τῆς 
Σικελίας situated (extending) towards, alongside of, Italy, constitute the transition to 
this use of the preposition. 


§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 405 


Jace turned to face). Sometimes the force of the Acc. seems to 
disappear and πρός means with, particularly before names of per- 
sons, asin Matt. xiii. 56; Jno.i.1; 1 Cor. xvi. 6 (Demosth. Apat. 
579 a.) ; even here, however, πρός denotes (ideal) annexation. 
But the appropriateness of the Acc. is still perceptible in Mark 
iv. 1 ὁ ὄχλος πρὸς τὴν θάλασσαν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἦν on the land towards 
the sea (by the sea-side), ii. 2; still more in Acts v. 10; xiii. 31; 
Phil. iv. 6; see Fr. Mr. p. 201 sq., ef. Schoem. Isae. p. 244. The 
Latin ad, as is well-known, has both significations. 

The temporal applications πρὸς καιρόν for a time Luke viii. 13 ; 
Jno. v.35; Heb. xii. 10 f., and πρὸς ἑσπέραν towards evening Luke 
xxiv. 29 (Wetst. I. 826), are seen at a glance to be warranted ; 
(cf. above, ἐπί ὃ 47, g, d) p. 375, and ὃ 48, ο. p. 392). 

Figuratively, mpos denotes the end towards which something is 
directed, and consequently the result, issue, as 2 Pet. iii. 164... 
στρεβλοῦσιν ... πρὸς THY ἰδίαν αὐτῶν ἀπώλειαν, Heb. v.14; ix. 13; 

1 Tim. iv. 7 (Simplic. in Epict. 13 p. 146), Jno. xi. 4; but espe- 
cially the direction of the mind towards something, e.g. Heb. i. 7 424 
πρὸς τοὺς ἀγγέλους λέγει in reference to (speaking with regard to 
them), Luke xx.19; Rom. x. 21 (not Heb. xi. 18), like digere in 
aliquem ; cf. Plutarch. de ei ap. Delph. c. 21; Xen. M. 4, 2, 15;-— 

in particular 

a) disposition towards one, erga and contra,! as in Luke xxiii. 12; 961 
1 Thess. v.14; 2 Cor. iv. 23; vii. 12; Acts vi. 1; Heb. xii. 4; Col. 6th ed 
iv. 5; Rev. xiii 6. 7 

b) design (direction of the will) and object (purpose, behalf), 
as in 1 Cor. χ. 11; xii.7; Matt. vi.1; Heb.vi.11; Acts xxvii. 12; 

2 Cor. xi. 8; 1 Pet.iv.12. Hence πρὸς τί wherefore (quo consilio) 
Jno. xiii. 28; cf. Soph. Aj. 40. 

6) consideration for something, Matt. xix. 8 Μωσῆς πρὸς τὴν 
σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν ἐπέτρεψεν etc. out of regard to, on account of, 
the hardness of your hearts (Polyb. 5, 27, 4; 38, 3, 10). 

d) the rule after, according to, which one is guided, Luke xii. 47; 
Gal. ii. 14; 2 Cor. v.10; Lucian. conser. hist. 38; Plat. apol. 40 e.; 
Aeschin. dial. 3,17; and hence the standard according to which 
a comparison is instituted, as in Rom. viii. 18 οὐκ ἄξια τὰ παθήματα 
τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ πρὸς THY μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι compared 
to, as if applied to a standard of comparison, Bar. iii. 36 (Thuc. 


1 Thus used but seldom except in verbs already containing the notion of hostility, 
as in Sext. Empir. 3, 2 (Dio C. 250, 923). This remark is necessary to qualify the 
statement in my Observatt. in. epist. Jac. p. 16. 


406 8.49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 


6,31; Plat. Gorg. 471¢.; Hipp. maj. 281 d.; Isoer. big. p. 842; 
Aristot. pol. 2,9,1; Demosth. ep. 4,119a; cf. Wolf, Leptin. p. 251; 
Jacobs, Aelian. anim. 11. 340). 


379 That in such expressions as διατίθεσθαι διαθήκην πρός τινα, διακρίνεσθαι 
Tth οἱ, πρός τινα, εἰρήνην ἔχειν πρός τινα (Rom. ν. 1), κοινωνία πρός τι 2 Cor. vi. 14 


(cf. Philo ad Caium 1007; Himer. eclog. 18, 3) ete. (see Alberti, observ. 
p- 303; Fr. Rom. I. 252) the preposition drops the meaning cum,' and 
signifies simply towards, has already been acknowledged by Bretschn. and 
Wahl. Also in Heb. iv. 13 πρὸς ὃν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος, the preposition denotes 
direction; and Kiihnol might have reserved his remark, "πρός signifies 
cum’ (cf. Elsner in loc.). Scehleusner’s rendering of the phrase εὔχεσθαι 
πρὸς θεόν by precari a deo, deserves to be mentioned only as a striking 
instance of unlimited empiricism. 


i. Περί about, around. Primarily of place, as in Acts xxii. 6 
περιαστράψαι φῶς περὶ ἐμέ a light shone round about me, Luke 


425 xiii. 8; also with verbs of rest, as in Mark iii. 34 οἱ περὶ αὐτὸν 


καθήμενοι, Matt. iii. 4 εἶχε ζώνην περὶ τὴν ὀσφύν about his loins. 
Then of time, as in Mark vi. 48 περὶ τετάρτην φυλακήν about the 
fourth watch (circa in Latin), Matt. xx. 3 (Aeschin. ep. 1, 121 b.) ; 
Acts xxii. 6. Lastly, of the object around which an action or a 
state revolves, as it were, as in Acts xix. 25 οἱ περὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα 
ἐργάται (Xen. Vectig. 4, 28); Luke x. 40 (Lucian. indoct. 6) ; 
1 Tim. vi. 4 νοσῶν περὶ ζητήσεις (Plat. Phaed. 228e.). Hence it 
is sometimes equivalent to in reference to, as in Tit. ii. 7; 1 Tim. 
i. 19; 2 Tim. iii. 8 (Xen. Mem. 4, 3, 2; Isocr. Evag. 4; errorem 
circa literas habuit, and similar expressions, occur in Quintil. and 
Sueton.). Of. above, § 30, 8, note 5 p. 192,and Ast, Plat. legg. p. 387 ; 
but especially Glossar. Theodoret. p. 317 sqq. Worthy of notice, 
further, is the phrase of περὶ τὸν Παῦλον Paul and his companions 


362 Acts xiii. 13,2 like of περὶ Ἐενοφῶντα Xen. An. 7, 4, 16, οἱ περὶ 
a ol. Κέκροπα Xen. Mem. 8, 5,10, an expression which in later authors 


denotes the leader alone, Hm. Vig. 700. So probably in Jno. xi. 19 


1 Μετά in such phrases is used also by Greek authors, though this use seems to 
become more common in the later language, Malal. 2, 52 ἐπολέμησαν μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων, 18 
p- 317, 337; 18 p. 457. 

2 Greek writers, as is well known, employ ἀμφί likewise in this circumlocution ; but 
in simple prose περί is in general far more frequent, That the expression of περὶ τὸν 
Παῦλον means not only the ‘surroundings’ (followers, companions, etc.) of Paul, but 
also includes Paul himself, arises probably from the pictorial nature of the preposition, 
which denotes what encompasses, and thus Paul’s company. An expression somewhat 
analogous to this is used in German, e.g. Miillers (genit.) i.e. Miiller and his household. 
(In Franconia they say, die Miillerschen, the Millers, also including the head of the 


family.) 


§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 407 


ai περὶ ἹΜάρθαν καὶ Μαρίαν is to be interpreted; for the αὐτὰς 
following can only refer to the two sisters. Examples (but with- 
out precise discrimination) are adduced also by Wetst. I. 915 sq. ; 
Schwarz, Comment. p. 1074; Schweigh. Lexic. Polyb. p. 463. See 
also Bhdy. 205. 

k. Ὑπό originally denotes local motion, wnderneath, Matt. viii. 8 
iva μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην eiséAOns, Luke xiii. 34 ἐπισυνάξαι τὴν νοσσιὰν 580 
ὑπὸ τὰς πτέρυγας (Xen. C. ὅ, 4, 48 ; Plutarch. Thes. 5); also rest, ‘th ed. 
i.e. the being (extending) under a surface, as in Acts ii. 5 οἱ ὑπὸ 
tov οὐρανόν, Luke xvii. 24 (Plat. ep. 7, 326 c.), 1 Cor. x. 1 (Her. 
2,127; Plut. Themist. 26; Aesop. 36, 3),) also in Rom. iii. 18 
(Sept.) ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν under their lips (cf. Her. 
1,12 κατακρύπτειν ὑπὸ τὴν θύρην). Then figuratively (Bhdy. 267; 
Boissonade, Nic. p. 56), Rom. vii. 14 πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν 
sold under sin, into the power of sin, Matt. viii. 9 ἔχων ὑπ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν 
στρατιώτας (Xen. C. 8, 8,5) under me i.e. subject to my power, 

1 Pet. v.6; often in the phrase εἶναι or γίνεσθαι ὑπό τι to be under, 426 
given up to, something, Matt. viii. 9; Rom. iii. 9; 1 Tim. vi. 1; 
Gal. iii. 10; iv. 2, 21 (Lucian. abdic. 23). It is applied to time 

in Acts v. 21 ὑπὸ τὸν ὄρθρον (Lucian. amor. 1) close upon, towards 
(like the local expression ὑπὸ τὸ τεῖχος). Similar instances are 

of frequent occurrence in Greek authors; as, ὑπὸ νύκτα, ὑπὸ τὴν 

ἕω etc. (see Alberti, observ. p. 224; Ellendt, Arrian. Alex. I. 146; 
Schweigh. Lexic. Polyb. p. 633). The Romans, too, use sub in 
the same way. 

1. Ἐπί 1) Of place: motion upon (over a level surface) Matt. 
XXxvii. 45 σκότος ἐγένετο ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, xiv. 19 ἀνακλιθῆναι ἐπὶ 
τοὺς χόρτους, Acts vii. 11 (xvii. 26.) ; on or to, coming from above 
or below, accordingly down upon Matt. x. 29 ἐπὶ γῆν, Acts iv. 33, 
up upon Acts x. 9 ἀνέβη ἐπὶ τὸ δῶμα, Matt. xxiv. 16; 1 Pet. ii. 24 
(Xen. 6. 3,1, 4), also on (upon) Jno. xiii. 25 ἐπιπίπτειν ἐπὶ τὸ 
στῆθος on the breast (Jno. xxi. 20); up before (a high court) 
Matt. x. 18; Luke xii. 11; in general, of the end towards, after, 
at (which one advances, strives, arrives, etc.) Luke xv. 4; xxii. 52; 
Acts viii. 836; Phil. iii. 14 (var.) Xen. Cyr. 1, 6, 39; An. 6, 2, 2; 
Kypke in loc., rarely merely to (of persons) Mark v. 21; Actsi. 21.2 363 
From this primary import we may easily explain the application δὶ οἰ 

1 Accordingly Eurip. Alcest. 907 λῦπαί τε φίλων τῶν ὑπὸ yaiav, which Monk changed 
into ὑπὸ γαίας, may probably be tolerated. Cf. Matthiae, Eurip. Hec. 144. The phrase 
is certainly not peculiar to later Greek (Palaeph. 10, 1). | 


? From such passages must be distinguished Luke x. 9 ἤγγικεν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἡ βασιλεία 
τοῦ θεοῦ. Here a heavenly gift is spoken of which comes down on men ; cf. Acts i. 8. 


408 § 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 


of the preposition in Acts x. 10 ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἔκστασις (Υ. 5), 
i. 26 ἔπεσεν ὁ κλῆρος ἐπὶ Ματθίαν, v. 28 ἐπαγαγεῖν ἐπί τινα τὸ αἷμα 
ἀνθρώπου τινός, Jno. i. 88 and elsewhere. The German az, almost 
universally applicable as it is, is very similar (only, in rendering 
Matt. xxvii. 29 ἐπέθηκαν κάλαμον ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιάν. a German would 
say, in die rechte Hand; better Codd., however, [Sin. also] give 
ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ, and the common reading cannot be defended by Rey. 
xx. 1). It is only in appearance that ἐπί with the Acc. is joined 
to verbs of rest; as in Matt. xiii. 2 6 ὄχλος ἐπὶ τὸν αἰγιαλὸν εἱστήκει 
stood (had placed themselves) upon. the shore, cf. Odyss. 11, 577 ; 
Diod.S.20,7. In Matt. xix. 28 καθίσεσθε ἐπὶ δώδεκα θρόνους (Paus. 
1, 35, 2), 2 Cor. iii. 15 κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν κεῖται, Acts x. 17; 

881 xi. 11, the same remark applies to the use of ἐπί as to that of 

Th ol. εἰς in similar circumstances ; see δ ὅ0, 4}. ; Ellendt, Arrian. Alex. 
ΤΠΡΌΤΗ 

427 2) Of the time over which something extends ; as, Luke iv. 25 
ἐπὶ ἔτη τρία for, during, three years, Acts xiii. 31; xix. 10; Heb. 
xi. 80; cf. Her. 8,59; 6,101; Thuc. 2, 25; Xen. C. 6, 2, 34; 
Plat. lege. 12,945 b.; Strabo 9,401. Hence ἐφ᾽ ὅσον Matt. ix. 15; 
2 Pet. i. 13 (Polyaen. 6, 22) as long as. More rarely of the point 
of time towards which, at which, something takes place, Acts iii. 1 
see Alberti in loc. 

3) Figuratively: a) of the number and degree to which some- 
thing amounts, as in Rev. xxi. 16 ἐπὶ σταδίους δώδεκα χιλιάδων ---- 
where we use up to (Her. 4,198; Xen.C. 7,5, 8; Polyb. 4, 39, 4) 
Rom. xi. 13 ἐφ᾽ ὅσον in quantum i.e. quatenus. b) of superin- 


1 Jas. v. 14 mposevédcOwoay ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν may mean let them pray over (upon) him (folding 
their hands over him in prayer, cf. Acts xix. 13), or pray down upon him, or even over 
him, for ἐπί is very often used with Acc. where the Dat. or Gen. might have been 
expected. A recent expositor should not have rejected this exposition so lightly. In 
Luke v. 25 ἐφ᾽ ὃ κατέκειτο (as the best Codd. [Sin. also] read) may be explained either 
according to the preceding remark, or thus: upon (over) which (a level) he lay. Moreover 
what is said above seems sufficient to justify the reading, furnished by good authority 
[also by Cod. Sin.] and already adopted by Lchm., in Jno. xxi. 4 ἔστη ἐπὶ τὸν αἰγιαλόν 
(cf. Xen. Cyr. 3, 8, 68, see above in the text), which Matthdi erroneously calls a semi- 
graccam correctionem. Elsewhere certainly the difference between ἐπί with Acc. and ἐπί 
with Gen. or Dat. is sometimes inconsiderable. When it is supposed, however, that in 
Mark xv. 24 (we also say iiber die Kleidung loosen) Phil. 1i. 27 (sorrow upon sorrow — 
so that one sorrow comes upon another already present) the Acc. stands for the Gen. 
or Dat., a closer examination of the passages shows at once the incorrectness of the 
supposition. But in Luke xxiii. 28; Rev. xviii. 11 the Dat. also might certainly have 
been employed, cf. Luke xix. 41; Rev. xviii. 20, and in Rev. v. 1 the Acc. would have 
been even more correct. These two constructions, though, are based on somewhat 
different views of the matter. We also say iiber eine Sache freuen (to rejoice over a thing). 


8 δ0. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 409 


tendence and power over, Rev. xiii. 7 ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία ἐπὶ πᾶσων .---- 
φυλήν, Heb. iii. 6; x. 21 (Xen. C. 4, 5, 58), cf. Luke ii. 8; xii. 14, 
βασιλεύειν ἐπί twa Luke i. 33; Rom. v. 14; οἵ, Malal. ὃ p. 143. 

0) of the heart’s direction, the disposition, hence towards (Franke, 
Dem. 127), erga and contra, Matt. x. 21; Luke vi. 85; 2 Cor. x. 2; 364 
Rom. ix. 23 (not 1 Pet. iii. 12), Sturz, ind. to Dio C. p. 151; hence δὲ οἱ 
to trust, hope, wpon Matt. xxvii. 43; 2 Cor. ii. 3; 1 Tim. v. 5; 

1 Pet. i. 18, but also σπλαγχνίζεσθαι ἐπί τινι, to have compassion 

on (towards) one, Matt. xv.32; Mark vili.2. d) of the direction 

of thought or discourse, Mark ix. 12; Heb. vii. 18 (Rom. iv. 9), 

or the will, and consequently of the intention and aim, Luke 
xxiii. 48 (Plat. Crit. 52b.), Matt. iii. 7 (Xen. M. 2, 3,13; Cyr. 

7, 2,14; Fischer, ind. ad Palaeph. under ἐπί), Matt. xxvi. 50 

ἐφ᾽ 6 (Plato, Gorg. 447 b.), also when aim and result coincide, 
Heb. xii. 10. — Lastly, it is used in a very general sense: in re/- 
erence to, as Matt. xxv. 40, 45 (as to Rom. xi. 18 see a)). On 428 
πιστὸς ἐπί τι Matt. xxv. 21, see Fr. in loc. 


850, INTERCHANGE, ACCUMULATION, AND REPETITION OF 382 
PREPOSITIONS. Tth ed, 


1. The same preposition is employed in the same sentence or 
in parallel passages (especially of the first three Evangelists) with 
different cases to denote different relations ; as, Heb. ii. 10 δι’ ὃν 
τὰ πάντα καὶ δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα, Rev. v.1; xi. 10; xiv. 6; οὔ! 
1 Cor. χὶ. 9,12 οὐκ ἀνὴρ διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα;--- ἀνὴρ διὰ τῆς γυναικός. 
Cf. Demosth. Philipp. 2 p. 29. To this more remotely may be 
referred Heb. xi. 29 διέβησαν τὴν ἐρυθρὰν θάλασσαν ὡς διὰ 
ξηρᾶς, where the Acc. is governed by the compound διαβαίνειν, 
after which, however, διά itself governs the Genitive (cf. Josh. 
xxiv. 17 ods παρήλθομεν bv αὐτῶν, Wisd. x. 18). The distinction 
between such different cases, in itself delicate, sometimes almost 
wholly disappears in practice ; as, Matt. xix. 28 ὅταν καθίσῃ ... 
ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης αὐτοῦ, καθίσεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐπὶ δώδεκα θρόνους, 
xxiv. 2 οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ λίθος ἐπὶ ALOov, Mark xiii. 2 οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ 
λίθος ἐπὶ λίθῳ (οἵ. Josh. v. 15 in one and the same clause ἐφ᾽ ᾧ 
νῦν ἕστηκας ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, Gen. xxxix. 5; xlix. 26; Exod. viii. 3; 
xii. 7; Jon. iv. 10), Rev. v.1,13; vi. 2,16; vii.1; xiii.16. Τὴ ἡ! 
the same way Greek authors employ ἀναβαίνειν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἵππους 
and ἐπὶ .τῶν ἵππων (Bornem. Xen. conv. p. 272) the one as often 

52 


410 § 50, INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 


as the other (Sept. even ἀναβαίνειν ἐπὶ ταῖς οἰκίαις Joel. ii. 9). In 
Rev. xiv. 9 we find λαμβάνει τὸ χάραγμα ἐπὶ τοῦ μετώπου αὐτοῦ 
, ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ, xiii, 1. Cf. also Diog. L. 2, 77... ἐπὶ τί 
jou; ἔφη ἐπὶ τῷ μεταδώσειν etc., Pol. 6,7, 2 τραφέντας ὑπὸ 
τοιούτοις, but 10, 25, 1 τραφεὶς καὶ παιδευθεὶς ὑπὸ Κλέανδρον. 
In general, see Jacobs, Anthol. III. 194, 286 ; Bhdy. 200f. Such 
apparent indifference as respects case occurs most frequently with 
ἐπί (Schneider, Plat. civ. 1. 74), ef. ἐλπίζειν ἐπί τινι and twa 
1 Tim. iv. 10; v. 5, πεποιθέναι ἐπί τινι and τινα 2 Cor. i. 9; ii. 8, 
καταστῆσαι ἐπί τινος and tit Luke xii. 42, 44 (κόπτεσθαι ἐπί τινα 
Rev. i. 7 and ἐπί τινε xviii. 9 var.), 6 ἐπὶ τοῦ κουτῶνος Acts xii. 20 
and ὁ ἐπὶ ταῖς ἄρκυσι Xen. Cyr. 2, 4, 25; see Lob. Phryn. 474 sq. 
429 Moreover, sec as to ἐπί used of aim with Gen. Bremi, Aesch. p. 412, 
with Dat. and Acc. Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 59, as to ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ and 
ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῷ Schoem. Isae. p. 849, as to παρά with Gen. instead of 
365 Dat. Schaef. Dion. p. 118 sq. Hence in detached instances, where 
bth ed. on exact parallel may not be found in Greek authors (Luke i. 59 
καλεῖν ἐπί τινι οἵ, Ezra ii. 61; Neh. vii. 63 etc.), we are not au- 
thorized to pronounce the construction un-Greek, particularly if 
something analogous can be adduced (Mtth. 1374), or if the case 
employed can be easily conceived as connected with the preposition 
in question. On the other hand, the N. T. writers never use ἐπὶ 
Κλαυδίῳ or Κλαύδιον for ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου, nor construe ἐπί of con- 
dition (stipulation) with the Gen. or Acc. It was not till a later 
period that different cases, which though construed with the 
‘883 same preposition conveyed different significations, began to be 
Mh el. confounded in the written language of the Greeks, so that e.g. 
μετά with Gen. and μετά with Acc. came to be used in the same 
sense, see above, p. 363. 


That in the same sentence the same preposition with the same case 
should be used in different relations and senses cannot be considered any 
more strange in Greek than in any other language, e.g. Luke xi. 50 iva 
ἐκζητηθῇ τὸ αἷμα πάντων τῶν προφητῶν ... ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης ἀπὸ τοῦ 
αἵματος ΓΑβελ οἴο., Rom. xv. 18 εἰς τὸ περισσεύειν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἐλπίδι ἐν 
δυνάμει πνεύματος ἁγίου, Ino. ii. 28 ἦν ἐν τ. Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐν τῷ πάσχα ἐν 
τῇ ἑορτῇ, 2 Cor. vii. 16 χαίρω ὅτι ἐν παντὶ θαῤῥῶ ἐν ὑμῖν, xii. 12; 1 Cor. 
iii. 18; Rom. i. 9; Eph. i. 3,14; ii. 8,7; iv. 22; vi. 18: Phil. i. 26; 
ii. 16; 1 Thess. ii. 14; 2 Thess. i. 4; Col. i, 29; ii. 2; iv. 2; Heb. v. 3; 
ix. 11 f.; Jno. iv. 45 (xvii.15); Acts xvii. 81; 2 Pet, i. 4 (Philostr. her. 
4,1; Arrian. Epict. 4, 13, 1). 


2. The two different prepositions in the same sentence in Philem. 


NN a ᾿ 


§ 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 411 


5 ἀκούων σου τὴν ἀγάπην καὶ τὴν πίστιν, ἣν ἔχεις πρὸς τὸν κύριον 
᾿Ιησοῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους are usually explained by refer- 
ring, in regard to the sense, the words πρὸς τὸν κύριον to πίστιν, 
and eis πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους. to ἀγάπην ; —a chiasmus in which there 
would be nothing inherently surprising, cf. Plat. legg. 9, 868 b. 
(see Ast, animady. p. 16), Horat. Serm. 1, 3,51 and the exposi- 
tors in loc. It is simpler, however, to take πίστις in the sense of 
fidelity, and to let both πρὸς τ. «. and εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους depend 
upon it alike, without making any distinction between the prepo- 
sitions ; see Meyer. Though some Codd. give εἰς in the former 430 
clause, this is only a correction, occasioned by the endeavor to 
make the phraseology uniform and by the circumstance that 
elsewhere faith in Christ is always called πίστις ἡ εἰς Χριστόν. 
Yet the expression πίστιν ἔχειν πρός τινα is quite unobjectionable, 
and occurs at least in Epiphan. Opp. 11. 335d. As to Luke v. 15; 
Jno. vii. 42; ἃ Cor. x. 3; 1 Thess. ii. 3; Rom. iv. 18; x. 17; 
Eph. iv. 12; 1 Jno. iii. 24; 1 Thess. iv. 7; 1 Pet. ii. 12, no remark 

is required. On1 Cor.iv.10; 2 Cor.iv.17; iii. 5; xiii. 3; 1 Cor. 

xii. 8 see the more recent expositors. On the other hand, in 

1 Thess. ii. 6 οὔτε ζητοῦντες ἐξ ἀνθρώπων δόξαν, οὔτε ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν οὔτε 

ἀπ᾽ ἄλλων the two prepositions are quite synonymous, as also in 
Jno. xi. 1; Acts xxiii. 34. In Rom. iii. 30 Paul certainly does not 
have in view any difference of meaning (between ἐκ πίστεως and 

᾿ διὰ τῆς πίστεως), as doctrinally considered πίστις may with equal 
propriety be conceived of either as the source or as the means of 
blessedness (Gal. iii.8; Eph.ii.8). Of. from Greek authors Paus. 

T, 7, 1 ai ἐκ πολέμων Kai ἀπὸ τῆς νόσου συμφοραί, Isocr. permut. 
738 ; Arrian. Al. 2,18, 9; Diod. S. δ, 30; Schaef. Gnom. p. 203 366 
and Soph. I. 248; Bornem. Xen. Mem. p. 45. As little difference ad 
is there between the two prepositions in 2 Jno. 2 τὴν ἀλήθειαν τὴν 
μένουσαν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ἔσται, and in Exod. vi. 4 ἐν ἦ (γῇ) 

καὶ παρῴκησαν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς, Jon. iv. 10. Lastly, in 2 Cor. iii. 11 the 
distinction urged by Billroth between διὰ δόξης and ἐν δόξῃ will 384 
hardly stand the test of usage, see above, p. 386. As to διά of Met 
condition (state), see p. 379 sq. On the other hand, the difference 

of import between «ard and ἐπί in 1 Cor. xi. 4,10 and between 

ἐκ and διά in 1 Pet. i. 23 is manifest. 

3. Prepositions of kindred signification are substituted for each 
other in parallel passages in the Gospels and elsewhere ; as, Matt. 
xxvi. 28 (Mark xiv. 24) αἷμα τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυνόμενον, on the 
contrary, Luke xxii. 20 τὸ ὑπὲρ πολλ. exy.; Matt. vii. 16 μήτι 


412 §50, INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 


συλλέγουσιν ἀπὸ ἀκανθῶν σταφυλήν, on the contrary, Luke vi. 44 
οὐκ ἐξ ἀκανθ. συλλέγουσι σῦκα; Matt. xxiv. 16 φευγέτωσαν ἐπὶ τὰ 
ὄρη (up to) cf. Palaeph. 1,10, but Mark xiii. 14 φευγ. εἰς τὰ ὄρη 
(into) ; Jno. x. 32 61a ποῖον αὐτῶν ἔργον λιθάζετέ με; VS. 33 περὶ 
καλοῦ ἔργου ov λιθάζομέν σε; Heb. vii. 2 ᾧ καὶ δεκάτην ἀπὸ πάντων 
ἐμέρισεν ᾿Αβραάμ,ν8. 4 ᾧ καὶ δεκάτην ᾽4βρ. ἔδωκεν ἐκ τῶν ἀκροθινίων; 
Rom. iii. 25 εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὑτοῦ, on the contrary, 
vs. 26 πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τ. dix. αὑτοῦ. Cf. Xen. Cyr. 5, 4,43 πρὸς 
431 αὐτὸ τὸ τεῖχος προςήγαγον ... οὐκ ἐθέλω ὑπ᾽ αὐτὰ τὰ τείχη ἄγειν. 
Here belongs also Heb. xi. 2 ἐν ταύτῃ (τῇ πίστει) ἐμαρτυρήθησαν οἱ 
πρεσβύτεροι, vs. 89 πάντες μαρτυρηθέντες διὰ τῆς πίστεως (through 
faith, i.e. ut instructi fide); here the phrases εὔχεσθαι, προς- 
εύχεσθαι, εὐχαριστεῖν, δέησις περί or ὑπέρ Twos (Rom. x.1; 2 Cor. 
i. 11; Eph. vi. 18; Col. i. 38,9; 1 Cor. i.4; Eph. i. 16; cf. Acta 
apocr. p. 53); here too the expression suffer or die περὶ or ὑπὲρ 
ἁμαρτιῶν (the former signifying on account of, the latter for, sins) 
1 Cor. xv.3; 1 Pet. iii. 18. Sometimes even the good Codd. vary 
between ὑπέρ and περί, as in Gal. i. 4, as these prepositions were 
often interchanged by the transcribers. Cf. Weber, Dem. 129. 
(Recent editors have proposed, assuredly without sufficient reason, 
to correct the reading in Eurip. Alcest. 180, where οὗ θνήσκειν πέρι 
occurs instead of the elsewhere more usual ὑπέρ, see Monk in loc.) 


Sometimes we find in parallel phrases a preposition now inserted and 
now omitted; as, 1 Pet. iv. 1 παθόντος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν σαρκί, and immediately 
afterwards 6 παθὼν ἐν σαρκί, Luke iii. 16; Acts i. 5; xi. 16 βαπτίζειν 
ὕδατι, but Barr. ἐν ὕδατι Matt. iii. 11; Jno. i. 26, 33.1 This difference 
‘in phraseology does not affect the sense, but each form of expression arose 
from a different conception: πάσχειν ἐν σαρκί means, suffer in the flesh 
(body); πάσχειν σαρκί means, suffer according to (as respects) the flesh 
(§ 31,6). Βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι signifies, baptize in water (immersing) ; 
βαπτίζειν ὕδατι, baptize with water. Here, and in most other passages, 

367 the identity of the two expressions in sense is manifest; yet we must not 

6th ed. consider one as put for the other. Cf. besides, Eph. ii. 1 νεκροὶ τοῖς παρα- 

885 πτώμασι but Col. ii. 13 νεκροὶ ἐν τοῖς παραπτ., 2 Cor. iv. 7 ἵνα ἡ ὑπερβολὴ 

ith οἱ. τῆς δυνάμεως ἢ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἡμῶν, Matt. vii. 2; cf. Luke vi. 38; 
1 Jno. iii. 18. 


4. It was formerly supposed (Glassii Philol. sacr. ed. Dathe 


1 But invariably only βαπτίζ. ἐν πνεύματι. 

2 So in Arist. anim. 4, 10, p. 111 Sylb. λαμβάνεσθαι τριώδοντι is, caught with a trident 
(like τῇ χειρί with the hand); but ληφθῆναι ἐν τῷ τριώδοντι, immediately following, 
is caught on the trident. Schneider and Bekker, however, read in the latter passage 
ληφθῆναι ἄν. 


8 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 413 


I. 412 sq.) that in the N. T. the prepositions ἐν and eis especially 
were used indiscriminately for each other (see also Sturz, Lexic. 
Xen. II. 68, 166). The former, it was said, was employed agree- 
ably to the Hebrew idiom with verbs of motion or direction to 
denote into, as Matt. x. 16 ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω ὑμᾶς ὡς πρόβατα ἐν μέσῳ 
λύκων, Ino. v. 4 ἄγγελος κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ, Luke vii. 17 482 
ἐξῆλθεν ὁ λόγος ἐν Ody τῇ Ιουδαίᾳ, Mark v. 80 ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ ἐπιστρα- 
gels, Rom. v. ὅ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκέχυται ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν, 
Luke v.16; Jno. viii. 37; 1 Cor. xi. 18, ete. (in Rev. xi. 11 the 
reading is very uncertain, and Mark i. 16; 1 Tim. iii. 16 do not 
come under this head). The latter, it was imagined, was used 
with verbs of rest to signify in, as Acts vii. 4 (ἡ γῆ) εἰς ἣν ὑμεῖς 
νῦν κατοικεῖτε, Mark ii. 1 εἰς οἶκόν ἐστι, Jno. i. 18 ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν 
κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ix. 7 νίψαι εἰς τὴν κολυμβήθραν etc." 

a. Now first in reference to ἐν: the Greeks also, particularly 
Homer, sometimes use ἐν with verbs of motion to indicate at the 
same time the result of the motion, that is, rest.2 This they do 
from a love of terseness peculiar to the Greek race. It is only in 
later writers, however, that such use of ἐν appears in prose (for 
Thue. 4, 42; 7,17; Xen. H. 7, 5, 10 have now been emended on 
MS. authority, Mtth. 1348), e.g. Aelian. 4, 18 κατῆλθε Πλάτων ἐν 
Σικελίᾳ i.e. he came (and dwelt) in Sicily, Paus. 6, 20, 4 αὐτοὶ 
κομίσαι φασὶ τῆς ᾿Ιπποδαμείας τὰ ὀστᾶ ἐν ᾿Ολυμπίᾳ, T, 4, 3 ete. ; 
Alciphr. 2, 8, p. 227 Wagn.; Xen. Eph. 2,12; Arrian. Epict. 1, 

11, 82; Aesop. 16, 127, 343 de Fur.; Dio Cass. 1288, 23; cf. 
Heind. Plat. Soph. p. 427 sq.; Poppo, Thue. I. I. 178 sq.; Schaef. 
Demosth. IIT. p. 505. The same explanation applies likewise to 
Matt. x. 16; Rev. xi. 11,3 and perhaps also (with BCrus.) to Jno. 368 
v. 4, especially if these words are a later addition; for the other μεν 


1 The above observation must be confined to the two cases specified ; for when ἐν 
and εἰς might according to different conceptions be used with equal propriety, it could 
not be said that one is put for the other, e.g. τοῦτο ἐγένετό μοι, or τοῦτο ἐγένετο εἰς ἐμέ. 

2 The same remark applies to the Hebrew 2 when it appears to be joined to verbs 
of motion, see my exeg. Studien I. 49 ff. Further, ef. Krebs, obs. 78 f.— ἥκω ἐν does 
not come under this head (Lucian: paras. 34; cf. Poppo, Thue. III. II. 891). Neither 
can Perfects or Pluperfects with ἐν, as καταπεφευγέναι ἐν τόπῳ Plat. Soph. 260 c. ; Thue. 
4, 14, etc., be considered as parallel with the above examples. They show, however, 
the origin of this usage, cf. Bhdy. 208 ; and in good writers the usage is generally 
confined to such cases only, Krii. S. 286. Finally, the (not infrequent) construction 
ἔρχεσθαι ἐν Luke ix. 46; xxiii. 42; Rev. xi. 11, etc. is perhaps to be also excepted 
when it denotes come (arise) in. 

5 The fact that eisépxeo@a ἐν appears to be an imitation of the Hebrew 3 812 makes 


no difference, as this Hebrew expression is undoubtedly to be explained in the same 
way. 


414 8 60, INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 


exposition, went down in the pool (into the depths, to produce the 
386 ταραχή, see Liicke), is opposed by the consideration, that then in 
ithe. so circumstantial a narrative a descent of the angel from heaven 
433 would first of all have been mentioned. In all other passages 
the substitution of ἐν for εἰς is merely apparent: Luke vii. 17 
means went forth (spread) in all Judea; Mark v. 80 ἐπιστραφεὶς 
ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ turned him about (turned around) in the crowd, Luke 
Vv. 16 ἣν ὑποχωρῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐρήμοις continued retired in the solitary 
places. If the reading is genuine in Matt. xiv. 8, ἔθετο ἐν φυλακῇ 
exactly corresponds to the Latin ponere im loco (for which we, 
according to a different but equally correct conception, say put 
into); similar is Jno. iii. 35 πάντα δέδωκεν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ, 2 Cor. 
viii. 16 (Iliad. 1, 441; 5, 574; cf. also Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. 1. 
598). In the same way, Matt. xxvi. 23 ὁ ἐμβάψας ἐν τῷ τρυβλίῳ 
is, he that dippeth am the dish, an expression as correct as the Ger- 
man in die Schiissel eintaucht, dippeth into the dish (cf. Aesop. 
124,1). In 1 Cor. xi. 18 cuvepy. ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ means, meet in an 
assembly (as we say, meet in the market-place, in company, etc.). 
In Phil.iv.16 ὅτι καὶ ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ ... εἰς τὴν χρείαν μου ἐπέμψατε 
the expression is abbreviated: ye sent to me (when 1 was) in Z’hes- 
salonica (cf. Thue. 4, 27 and Poppo, in loc.). As to Jno. viii. 37 
there may be doubt how ἐν ὑμῖν is to be taken, see Liicke ; but 
there can be no doubt that ἐν is not put for eis. As to Jas. v. 5 
see de Wette. In Matt. xxvii. 5 ἐν τῷ ναῷ is, in the temple. In 
Rom. v. 5 the use of the Perfect was sufficient to indicate the 
correct interpretation (ef. Poppo, Thue. 4, 14).1 
b. More surprising still are the passages adduced in support of 
the assertion that εἰς is used for ἐν. Even in Greek authors εἰς is 
not unfrequently construed with verbs of rest; and then the idea 
of motion (preceding or accompanying) was originally included, 
agreeably to the principle of breviloquentia mentioned above (Heind. 
Plat. Protag. p. 467; Acta Monac. I. 64sq.; 11. 47; Schaef. 
Demosth. I. 194 sq. ; Schoem. Plutarch. Agis 162 sq. ; Hm. Soph. 
Aj. 80; Jacobs, Ael. anim. p. 406, and, as to Latin, Hartung on 
the Cases S. 68 ff.), as Xen. Cyr. 1, 2, 4 νόμῳ eis τὰς ἑαυτῶν χώρας 
ἕκαστοι τούτων πάρεισιν, Aelian. 7,8 ᾿Ηφαιστίων eis ᾿Εκβάτανα 
ἀπέθανε, Isacus 5, 46 (οἵ. Acts xxi. 18),? Diod. 5. δ, 84 διατρίβων 
1 Passages of Greek authors in which some have erroneously thought ἐν is put for 
eis, have been more correctly explained by Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 247. As ἴο. εἰς for 
ἐν, see ibid. II. 91. As to Latin phrases in which in with Ablat. appeared to be used 
for in with Acc., see Kritz, Sallust. II. 81 sq. : 


3 Εἰς χωρίον τῆς ᾿Αρκαδίας θνήσκει Steph. Byz. p. 495 Mein. is to be explained in δ 
different manner. 


8 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 415 


eis Tas νήσους Paus. 7,4, 3. (The use of εἰς with such verbs as 434 
ἵζειν, καθέζεσθαι --- καθῆσθαι --- Mark xiii. 3, cf. Eurip. Iph. T. 620, 

is of a somewhat different nature, see Bttm. Dem. Mid. p. 175 ; 869 
Schweigh. Lexic. Herod. I. p. 282; Valcken. Herod. 8, 71 ete. ; δ ὦ 
Poppo, Thue. III. I. p. 659; Fr. Mr. p. 558.) In this way are to ) 887 
be explained the following passages: Mark ii. 1, where we say in 
German also er ist ins Haus, i.e. he has gone into the house an@ 

is now there (Her. 1, 21; Arrian. Al. 4, 22,3; Paus. 8,10, 4 and 
Siebelis in loc.; Liv. 87,18? Curt. 3, 5,10; Vechner, hellenol. 

p- 258 sq.) cf. xiii. 16; Luke xi. 7; Acts viii. 40 Φίλιππος εὑρέθη 

eis “Ἄζωτον Philip was found conducted to Azotus (cf. vs. 39 πνεῦμα 
κυρίου ἥρπασε τὸν Φίλ., see Wesseling. Diod. Sic. II. 581; ef. 
Esth. i. 5; Evang. apocr. p. 447); Acts vii. 4 εἰς ἣν ὑμεῖς νῦν 
κατοικεῖτε (Xen. A. 1, 2, 24; Xen. Eph. 2,12; Theodoret. Opp. 

I. 594), Mark x. 10 (where the position of the words is to be 
noted) ; probably also Acts xviii. 21 δεῖ με τὴν ἑορτὴν τὴν ἐρχομένην 
ποιῆσαι εἰς Iepoc., but the genuineness of these words is suspected 
and the more recent editors have omitted them, [they are wanting, 
too, in Cod. Sin.] ; Jno. xx. 7 ἐντετυλυγμένον εἰς ἕνα τόπον wrapt 
together (and put) into one place. On the other hand, in Acts 
xii. 19 εἰς Καισάρειαν belongs grammatically to κατελθών. In Acts 

xx. 14 εἰς signifies to. In Acts xix. 22 ἔπεσχε χρόνον eis τὴν ᾿Ασίαν, 
probably εἰς is not used simply in a local sense: he remained tn 
Asia; but, he remained for Asia, in order to labor there longer. 
The only admissible interpretation of Acts iv. 5 συναχθῆναι αὐτῶν 
τοὺς ἄρχοντας... εἰς ‘Iepoc. is that of Beza; yet the good Codd. 
[Sin. excepted] give ἐν. In Acts ii. 39 the oi εἰς μακράν are those 
dwelling at a distance,—afar off. In Jno. 1. 18 ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν 
κόλπον (though here said in reference to God) is probably to be 
referred to the primary (external and local) import: who is 
(laid) wpon Cunto) the bosom.t In Jno. ix. 7 εἰς τὴν κολυμβήθραν 

is as respects sense to be connected also with ὕπαγε. cf.vs.11: go 
into the pool and wash thyself (cf. Luke xxi. 87) see Liicke, though 
νίπτεσθαι εἰς ὕδωρ by itself is as correct as in Cato R. R. 156, 5 

in aquam macerare, or sich in ein Becken waschen (Arrian. Epict. 435 


1 Cf. with this as analogous in aurem, oculum dormire Terent. Heaut. 2, 2,101; Plin. 
epp. 4, 29; Plaut. Pseud.1,1,121. De Wette rejects the above explanation, “as here at 
least quite inadmissible.” But why should not such figurative expressions, transferred 
from human relations to God, be taken in the sense which primarily belongs to them, 
the sense in which they had their origin? The phrase is in existence ; when transferred 
to immaterial relations it is taken just as it stands, without further thought respecting 
the physical relation in which it originated. 


416 § 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 


8,22,71).1 Still more easy of explanation is Mark i. 9 ἐβαπτίσθη 

εἰς τὸν ᾿Ιορδάνην. In Luke viii. 84 ἀπήγγειλαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν ete. 
means, they carried the news into the city (for which we find a 
more circumstantial statement in Matt. viii. 33: ἀπελθόντες εἰς τὴν 
πόλιν ἀπήγγειλαν πάντα etc.). Not unlike this is Mark i. 39; ef. 
Jno. viii. 26. In Mark xiii. 9 καὶ εἰς συναγωγὰς δαρήσεσθε, where 

@y though it has some slight MSS. support is clearly a correction, 
388 the words εἰς συναγωγάς cannot well (Mey.) be joined to the 
The nreceding παραδώσουσι without quite destroying the parallelism. 
The most literal rendering, ye shall be beaten into the synagogues, 
370 presents no archaeological difficulty ; still, one would have sooner 
¥ expected the beating am the synagogues. The pregnant construc- 
tion, however: brought into the synagogues, ye shall be beaten, is 
harsh for Mark. , Luke iv. 23 ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν γενόμενα εἰς Καπερ- 
ναούμ may be rendered: done (towards) unto Capernaum, cf. 
Acts xxviii.6; and év, which some good Codd. give, is undoubtedly 

a correction.2 See, generally, Beyer de praeposs. ἐν et εἰς in N. T. 
permutatione. Lips. 1824. 4to.8 . 

5. If we turn now, further, to several passages of the N. T. 
Epistles where these prepositions (particularly ἐν for eis) are sup- 
posed to be interchanged when used in an ideal sense (cf. also 
Riick. Gal. i. 6), probably nobody will find any difficulty with 

2 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. iii. 12; 2 Pet. ii. 13 ;— quite as little with 
Eph. i. 17; vi. 15. In Phil. i. 9 ἵνα ἀγάπη ... περισσεύῃ ἐν ἐπι- 
γνώσει means in knowledge; the purpose, on the other hand, is 
first expressed by εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν vs. 10. So too in Philem. 6 ὅπως 

ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου ἐνεργὴς γένηται ἐν ἐπιγνώσει. In Jas. 

v. 5 ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σφαγῆς means — as is plain from its parallelism with 
ἐθησαυρίσατε ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις vs. ---- ἦγι the day of slaughter, 
which also makes good sense, see Theile in loc. In Eph. ii. 16 


1 Jer. xli. (xlviii.) 7 WM PIM7DN OVMV ἔσφαξεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ φρέαρ he slew (and 
cast) them into the pit. Cf. 1 Mace. vii. 19. 

2 Soph. Aj. 80 ἐμοὶ ἀρκεῖ τοῦτον és δόμους μένειν can no longer be adduced ; as 
Lob. has shown that the true reading is ἐν δόμοις. See also Wunder on Lobeck’s edit. 
5. 92f. As to Xen. ©. 2, 1, 9, however, see Bornem. in the Index, under εἰς. Also 
Lycurg. 20, 3 διακαρτερεῖν eis τὴν πατρίδα is not: they were stedfast in their country. 

8 Originally ἐν and és (eis) may have been one and the same preposition, as in Pindar 
we find agreeably to the Aeolic dialect ἐν with Acc. for eis; see Pindar ed. Béckh, I. 
p- 294, 378, etc. As little, however, can be argued from this in support of an inter- 
change of these two prepositions in the cultivated written language of the Greeks with 
its established forms, as that in German at the present day vor and fiir may be arbitra- 
rily interchanged because in the earlier language they were properly only one and the 
same word. 


Δ, 





§50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 417 


ἕν ἑνὶ σώματι points to εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον ; accordingly, he 436 
reconciles to God ἐν ἑνὲ σώματι those κτισθέντας εἰς ἕνα ἄνθρ. 
In Rom. i. 24 εἰς ἀκαθαρσ. is to be joined directly to παρέδωκεν, 
and ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθ. is in their lusts, cf. vs. 27 ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν. 
In 1 Cor. i. 8 ἐν τῇ ἡμ. is construed with ἀνεγκλήτους, and this is in 
apposition to ὑμᾶς. In the same way, ‘in 1 Thess. iii. 18, ἐν τῇ πα- 
ρουσίᾳ, which is parallel to ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θεοῦ, depends directly on 
ἀμέμπτους. In 2 Thess. ii. 13 εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ... εἰς σωτηρίαν ἐν 
ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος etc. means, chosen to salvation in sanctification 
of the Spirit; ἁγιασμ. wv. is the spiritual state in which the being 
chosen to salvation is realized. 1 Jno. iv. 9 is simply: in this was 
manifested the love of God on (as respects) ws. On the other hand, in 
Rom. ii. 5 θησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ ὀργὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς is an abbrevia- 
ted expression: thou art treasuring up to thyself wrath (which will 
break forth) on the day of wrath. And 1 Thess. iv. 7 οὐκ ἐκάλεσεν 
ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ ἀλλὰ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ is put for ὥςτε εἶναι 389 
(ἡμᾶς) ἐν ἁγιασμῷ. 1 Cor. vii. 16 and Eph. iv. 4 may also be Met 
explained in the same way; others, however, understand é to 
refer to the ethical nature of the κλῆσις, see, especially, Harless 

on the latter passage. Moreover, in 1 Cor. the Perfect is not to 

be overlooked. As to διδόναι ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις 2 Cor i. 22 and the 871 
like (Rom. v. 5) no remark is necessary after what has been said ‘het 
above, p. 414. Finally, εἰς is not put for ἐν in Rom. vi. 22 ἔχετε 

τὸν καρπὸν ὑμῶν eis ἁγιασμόν ; the eis manifestly designates the 
moral goal. Similar is Rom. xiii.14. In Eph. iii. 16 κραταιοῦσθαι 

eis τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον means, to become strong in regard to the in- 
ward man. In geueral, it is inherently improbable that in clearly 
conceived doctrinal statements the apostles should have perplexed 

the reader by employing ἐν for eis or εἰς for ἐν. At least, they 
could have written e’s-with as much ease, certainly, as the exposi- 
tors who are trying to smuggle it in. 


— 


The alleged usage of indiscriminately interchanging these prepositions 
-is not sustained by an appeal to Suidas and the Fathers ;! nor by the fact 
that sometimes in parallel passages «is and ἐν exchange places, as Matt. 
xxi. 8 ἔστρωσαν τὰ ἱμάτια ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, but Mark xi. 8 εἰς τὴν ὁδόν; Matt. 
Χχίν. 18 6 ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ μὴ ἐπιστρεψάτω, Mark xiii. 16 6 εἰς τὸν ἀγρόν ete. ; 
Mark i. 16 ἀμφιβάλλοντες ἀμφίβληστρον ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, Matt. iv.18 Badd. 437 


1 The words of 2 Cor. xii. 2 ἁρπαγέντα ἕως τρίτου οὐρανοῦ are quoted by Clem. Alex. 
paedag. I. p. 44 Sylb. thus: ἐν τρίτῳ ἁρπασθεὶς οὐρανῷ ; on the other hand, those of 
Prov. xvii. 3 δοκιμάζεται ἐν καμίνῳ ἄργυρος etc. are quoted by him in Strom. II. p. 172 
as follows: Soni. ... εἰς κάμινον. 


53 


418 §50, INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 


ἀμφίβλ. eis τὴν θάλασσαν ---- [Ππ8 former means, they cast the net about 
(waved it about) in the sea; the latter, they cast it into the sea; different 
stages and acts of their business are indicated. In Rom. y. 21 ἐβασίλευσεν 
ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ in death, which is actually present; but ἵνα 4 
χάρις βασιλεύσῃ διὰ δικαιοσύνης εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον unto life, as the end to be 
attained ; probably, however, eis ζ. αἰών. depends directly on dix. see Fr. ; 
cf. besides 2 Cor. xiii.3. It must, however, be admitted that the limitation 
according to which εἰς is construed with verbs of rest and ἐν on the other 
hand with verbs of motion, is overlooked by writers of the later period, 
especially by the Scholiasts* and Byzantines, and so ἐν and εἰς are em- 
ployed without distinction, and ἐν even begins to predominate with verbs 
of motion, see Leo Diac. ed. Hase p. XII.; Blume, Lycurg. p. 56; Niebuhr, 
ind. to Agath., also the indices to Theophan. and to Menandri hist. in the 
Bonn ed.2, The modern Greeks, in fact, have retained but one of these 
prepositions. Cf. further, Argum. ad Demosth. Androt. § 17 ; Theodoret. 
Opp. Π. 466, 804; III. 869; Epiphan. haer. 46, 5; Pseudepiph. vit. proph. 
pp. 241, 248, 332, 334, 340, 341; Basilic. I. 150; ILL. 496, also the Sept. 


800 the Apocr. and the Pseudepigr.* in many passages. Yet in the N. T. 


Tth ed. 


there is at least no instance more anomalous than those which occur in 
the earlier writers of the κοινή. 


372 6. It is especially characteristic of Paul to use several preposi- 


6th ed 


438 


tions referring to one and the same substantive, in order that 
together they may define his idea on all sides, e.g. Gal. i. 1 Παῦλος 
ἀπόστολος οὐκ ἀπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δ ἀνθρώπου, ἀλλὰ διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ πατρός etc. i.e. an apostle sent forth in no respect 
by human authority (not from men, as the ultimate authority ; 
not through any man, as intermediate authority) ; Rom. iii. 22 
(πεφανέρωται) δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ eis 
πάντας καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας, i.e. is most completely imparted to all be- 


lievers (is manifested wnto all and over (upon) all), Syriac waa 


eo ἊΣ «οἱ (Bengel in loc. is arbitrary, following the ancient 
expositors; Riick. helpless) ; xi. 86 ἐξ αὐτοῦ (Geod) καὶ dv αὐτοῦ 
καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα, i.e. the world bears every possible depend- 
ent relation to God,—it is from (out of) him, inasmuch as he ~ 
created it (the First Cause); through him, inasmuch as he is 


1. Compare Hm. on Béckh’s Behandl. ἃ. Inschrift. S. 181 f. 

2 Niceph. Constant. p. 48 τυφλώσας ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ ἐξέπεμψε, Theophan. p. 105 Γρηγόριος 
παῤῥησιαστικώτερον ἐδίδασκεν - «. εἰς τὸ εὐκτήριον τῆς ἁγίας ἀναστάσεως, p. 62, 65, 68; 
Malal. 18, 467. 

8 Cf, Wahl, Clay. apocr. pp. 165,195; Fabric, Pseudepigr. I. 598, 629 ; Brtschn. lexie. 
man. p.139; Acta apocr. pp. 5, 13, 38, 65, 66, 68, 71, 88, 91, 93, 94, 263, and on almost 


every page. 


§50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 419 


(perpetually) efficient upon it; fo him, inasmuch as he is the 
ultimate End to which all things are directed ;} Col. i. 16 ἐν αὐτῷ 
(Χριστῷν) ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ... τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ Kai εἰς αὐτὸν 
ἔκτισται, i.e. the universe stands in necessary and complete rela- 
tion to Christ; first, historically (Aor.): in him was the world 
created, inasmuch as he, the divine λόγος, was the personal ground 
of the divine creative act (just as tn Christ God redeemed the 
world) ; then of the world as subsisting (Perf.): all things have 
been created through (by) him (as mediate person), and to (for) 
him (as κύριος πάντων in the most comprehensive sense); in 
vs. 17 πρὸ πάντων refers back to δι’ αὐτοῦ, and ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν 
is explanatory of εἰς αὐτόν. Eph. iv. 6 εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων 
ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν ἡμῖν, i.e. God is the 
God and Father of all in every conceivable relation, (ruling) over 
all, (working) through all, (dwelling) in all (filling them with his 
Spirit). 2 Pet. iii. 5 γῆ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ δι’ ὕδατος συνεστῶσα τῷ θεοῦ 
λόγῳ out of water (as the material in which it lay contained) and 
through water, i.e. through the action of the water, which partly 
retired to the low places, and partly formed the clouds in the sky. 
In the parallel clauses in 1 Cor. xii. 8f spiritual gifts are referred, 
by the use of da, κατά, ἐν, to the πνεῦμα from which they all origi- 
nate: διά designates the Spirit as mediate agent ; κατά, as disposer 
(vs. 11); ἐν, ἃ5 container. The antithesis between ἐκ (or ἀπό) and 
eis (the point from and the point towards) is easily perceived, Rom. 
i, 17; 2 Cor. iii. 18 (ef. in a local reference Matt. xxiii. 34). (In 
1 Cor. viii. 6, where the corresponding prepositions refer to differ- 
ent subjects —@eos ἐξ οὗ and κύρ. ’I. Xp. δι ob —there cannot 
be a moment’s doubt respecting the propriety and import of the 
prepositions. ) 


The following instances in Greek authors deserve notice as parallel : 


391 
Tth ed. 


373 


Mr. Anton. 4, 23 ἐκ σοῦ (ὦ φύσις) πάντα, ἐν σοὶ πάντα, εἰς σὲ πάντα, Heliod. Sth ed 


2,25 πρὸ πάντων καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν, Philostr. Apoll. 8, 25 τοὺς ἐπὶ θαλάττῃ τε 
καὶ ἐν θαλάττῃ, Isocr. big. p. 846 τὰ μὲν ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν, τὰ δὲ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, τὰ δὲ δ 
ὑμᾶς, τὰ δ᾽ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, Acta Ignat. p. 868 8¢ οὗ καὶ μεθ᾽ οὗ τῷ πατρὶ ἡ δόξα. 
Other’ instances may be seen in Wetst. II. 77 and Fr. Rom. IT. 556. 


7. When two or more substantives dependent on the same prep- 439 


osition immediately follow one another joined together by a copula, 


1 Theodoret has thus explained the passage: αὐτὸς τὰ πάντα πεποίηκεν, αὐτὸς τὰ 
γεγονότα διατελεῖ κυβερνῶν ... εἰς αὐτὸν ἀφορᾶν ἅπαντας προτήκει ὑπὲρ μὲν τῶν ὑπαρξάντων 
χάριν ὁμολογοῦντας, αἰτοῦντας δὲ τὴν ἔπειτα προμήθειαν, αὐτῷ δὲ χρὴ καὶ τὴν προφτήκουσαν 
ἀναπέμπειν δοξολογίαν. 


420 §50, INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 


the preposition is most naturally repeated, if the substantives in 
question denote things which are to be conceived as distinct and 
independent, Weber, Demosth. p. 189 (as to Latin, see Kritz, 
Sallust. I. 226; Zumpt, Gr. 8. 601f.); but not repeated, if the 
substantives fall under a single category, or (if proper names) 
under one common class : 

a. Luke xxiv. 27 ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ Μωσέως καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν 
προφητῶν (Acts χν. 4); 1 Thess. i. ὃ ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ 
καὶ ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ, Jno. xx.2;! 2 Tim.iii.11; Acts xxviii. 2; 
Mark vi. 4; x. 29; xii. 33; Rev. vi.9. Hence it is almost always 
repeated when two nouns are connected together by «al... καί 
(Bremi, Lys. p. ὃ 54.) or te... καί, as in Acts xxvi. 29 καὶ ἐν ὀλίγῳ 
kal ἐν πολλῷ (the two are incompatible with each other), Luke 
xxil. 83; 1 Cor. ii. 3; Philem. 16; Acts xvii. 9; ef. Xen. Hier. 
1, 5 (but Soph. Trach. 879); Phil. i. 7 ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου καὶ 
ἐν τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ, Acts xxv. 23 etc. (cf. Xen. Cyr. 1, 6, 16; Thue. 
8, 97; Diod. S. 19, 86; 20,15; Paus. 4, 8, 2)? 

b. Jno. iv. 25 ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ (two aspects of one com- 
prehensive notion) see Liicke, Luke xxi. 26 ἀπὸ φόβου καὶ προςδο- 
kias τῶν ἐπερχομένων (essentially one state of mind), Eph. i. 21; 
1 Thess. i. 8; Acts xvi. 2; xvii. 15 (cf. Xen. Cyr. 1, 2,7; Arist. 
Eth. Nic. 7, 11lin.; Thuc. 3,72; 2,83; Paus. 10, 20, Dales when 
the palectnntieca are aad by Te... καί, as in py XXVili. 23 ἀπό 
τε τοῦ νόμου Μωσέως καὶ τῶν προφητῶν, i. 8; xxvi. 20 (Franke, 
Demosth. p. 65), Paus. 10, 37,2; 25,23; Xen. Hell.1,1,3; Herod. 
6, 3, 2. For instances with proper names, see Acts vi. 9 τῶν ἀπὸ 

392 Κιλικίας καὶ ᾿Ασίας, xiv. 21 ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς τὴν Δύστραν καὶ ᾿Ϊκό- 
νιον καὶ ᾿Αντιόχειαν, Xvi. 2; ix. 81; Matt. iv. 25. 

If the substantives are connected dis7 unctively or antithetically, 
the preposition is in the former case usually, and in the latter 
always, repeated, Col. iii. 17 6 τι ἐὰν ποιῆτε ἐν λόγῳ ἢ ἐν Epye, 
ii. 16; Matt. vii, 16; xvii. 25; Luke xx. 4; Jno. vii. 48; Acts iv. 7; 

«Vili. 84; Rom. iv. 9; 1 Cor. iv. 3, 21; xiv. 6; Rey. xiii. 16; ef. 
Paus. 7, 10, 1 (the contrary only in Heb. x. 28 ἐπὶ δυσὶν ἢ τρισὶ 
μάρτυσιν, 1 Tim. v.19); Rom. iv. 10 οὐκ ἐν περιτομῇ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν 

440 ἀκροβυστίςᾳ, νἱ. 15; viii.4; 1 Cor. 1. δ; xi.17; 2 Cor.i.12; iii. 3; 


1 On this passage Bengel remarks: ex praepos. repetita colligi potest, non una fuisse 
utrumque discipulum. 

2 As to the various cases in which Greek prose writers repeat a preposition after 
τε καί, see Sommer in the Jahrb. f. Philol. 1831. 8. 408 f. ; cf. Stallb. Phileb. p. 156° 
Weber, Dem. 189. 


§50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 451 


Eph. i. 21; vi. 12; Jno. vii. 22; xvii. 9, etc. (Alciphr. 1, 31).’ 374 
Lastly, in comparisons the preposition is always repeated, Acts Sih et 
xi. 18; Rom. v. 19; 1 Cor. xv. 22; 2 Thess. ii. 2; Heb. iv. 10 
(as to Greek authors, see Schaef. Julian. p. 19 sq.; Held, Plut. 
Aem. 124; Krii. 284). In general, there is a greater tendency 
to repeat the preposition in the N. T. than in Greek prose (Bhdy. 
201; Kriig. 284 f.; Schoem. Plutarch. Cleom. p. 229), which 
frequently or usually omits the preposition, not only before a noun 
simply connected with one preceding (Bornem. Xen. conv. 159), 
but also after ἀλλά or ἤ (Schaef. Dem. V. 569, 760; Plutarch. 
IV. 291; Poppo, Thue. III. IV. 493; Weber, Dem. 389; Franke, 
Dem. 6) before words in apposition (Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 112, 
247; cf. Bornem. Schol. p. 173) and in answers (Stallb. Plat. 
_ sympos. p. 104 sq. ; Gorg. p. 38; rep. 1.287). On the other hand, 
the following passages are singular even in the N. T.: Acts xxvi. 
18 ἐπιστρέψαι ἀπὸ σκότους εἰς φῶς καὶ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σατανᾶ ἐπὶ 
τὸν θεόν, vii. 38; 1 Cor. x. 28; Heb. vii. 27, but cf. Aristot. Eth. 
Nicom. 10, 9, 1 περί te τούτων καὶ τῶν ἀρετῶν, ἔτι δὲ καὶ φιλίας ete. 
(see Zell, Aristot. Eth. p. 442); Lysias 1, in Theomnest. 7; Dion. 
H. IV. 2223,1; Diog. L. prooem. 6; Strabo 16, 778; Diod. Sic. 
δ, 81; Plutarch. Sol. ο. 3. 


In Jude 1 & is not to be repeated from the preceding clause before 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, as that would be harsh; but “Ino. Xp. is the dativus commodi: 
kept for Christ. Before a noun in apposition the preposition is regularly 
not repeated, Luke xxiii. 51; Eph. i. 19; 1 Pet. ii. 4; it is only in cases 
of epexegetic apposition that the repetition can take place, Rom. ii. 28 
ἡ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ περιτομή; Ino. xi. 54, (in 1 Jno. v. 20 there is 
no apposition). So also in the classics, though usually only when the 
word in apposition is separated from the principal substantive, Fritzsche, 
quaest. Lucian. p. 127; Mtth. 1402. 

The repetition of the preposition before each of a series of nouns suc- 
ceeding one another without connectives, as in Eph. vi. 12 ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὰς 
ἀρχάς, πρὸς τὰς ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας... πρὸς τὰ πνεύμ. 
ete., Jno. xvi. 8 (cf. Arist. rhet. 2, 10, 2), is of a rhetorical nature or 
serves to give greater prominence to the several particulars, see Dissen, 393 
Pind. p. 519. Tth ed, 

The preposition with which the antecedent is construed, is usually in 
Greek authors πού repeated before the relative, as Plat. legg. 10, 909 ἃ, 
ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμέρας, ἧς ἂν ὃ πατὴρ αὐτῶν ὄφλῃ τὴν δίκην, 12, 955d. ἐν ἱεροῖς ---- 441 
οἷς ἂν ἐθέλῃ, 2, 659 Ὁ. ἐκ ταὐτοῦ στόματος, οὗπερ τοὺς θεοὺς ἐπεκαλέσατο etc. 


1 But in such antitheses the preposition is not repeated before an adjective, as 1 Pet. 
i 23 οὐκ ἐκ σπορᾶς φθαρτῆς ἀλλὰ ἀφθάρτου. 


422 ὃ 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. 


Plat. Phaed. 21 ; Gorg. 458e.; Lach. 192 ".; Thuc. 1, 28; Xen. conv 
4,1; An.5,7,17; Hiero 1,11; Aristot. probl. 26, 4 and 16; Paus. 9, 39, 
4; cf. Bremi, Lys. p. 201; Schaef. Soph. I1I. 317; Dion. comp. p. 325; 
Melet. p. 124; Demosth. II. 200; Heller, Soph. Oed. C. p. 420; Ast, Plat. 
lege. p. 108; Wurm, Dinarch. p- 93; Stallb. Plat. rep. 11. 291; Bhdy. 208 f. 
875 So, in the N. T., Acts xiii. 39 ἀπὸ πάντων, ὧν οὐκ ἠδυνήθητε ... δικαιωθῆναι, 
bth ed, δικαιοῦται, xiii. 2 dpopioare ... εἰς τὸ ἔργον, ὃ προςκέκλημαι αὐτούς, Luke 
i. 20; xii. 46; Matt. xxiv. 50; Rev. ii. 13 (not 1 Cor. vii. 20); on the 
contrary, Jno. iv. 53 ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ, ἐν 7 εἶπεν, Acts vii. 4; xx. 18 (Jon. 
iv. 10) cf, Demosth. Timoth. 705 b. ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις, ἐν οἷς γέγραπται τὴν 
τιμὴν τῶν φιαλῶν ὀφείλων, Aristot. anim. 5, 80; Plat. Soph. 257d.; Xen. 
Cyr. 1, 2, 4; Diog. L. 8, 68; Heinich. Euseb. II. 252. As to the Lat. 
see Ramshorn 8S. 378; Beier, Cic. offic. I. 123. The Greek authors, also, 
readily repeat the preposition when the relative is separated by several 
words from the antecedent, Her. 1, 47; Xen. yectig. 4,13; Lucian. necyom. 
9; Dio Chr. 17, 247. 
In Greek authors, and especially in the poets, a preposition belonging 
to two successive nouns is sometimes, as is well known, expressed only 
once and that before the second noun, Hm. Vig. p. 854; Lob. Soph. Aj. 
v. 397 sq., the comment. on Anacr. 9, 22; Kiihner II. 320 ete. Such an 
instance has been supposed to occur in Phil. ii. 22 (Heinich. Euseb. II. 252) 
ὅτι, ὡς πατρὶ τέκνον, σὺν ἐμοὶ ἐδούλευσεν etc. But the passage contains 
rather a variatio structurae. Paul uses σὺν ἐμοί, bethinking himself that 
he cannot well say ἐμοὶ ἐδούλευσεν : he has, as a child serves his father, 
served with me, etc. See, in general, the opposite remarks of Bhdy. p. 202; 
cf. however, Franke, Dem. p. 30. 
Note 1. It is a peculiarity of later Greek, in particular, to combine a 
preposition with an adverb, especially of place or time (Krii. 266 f.),— 
either so as to make the preposition modify the meaning of the adverb, as 
in ἀπὸ πρωΐ Acts xxviii. 23, ἀπὸ πέρυσι 2 Cor. viii. 10; ix. 2, ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι Matt, 
xxvi. 29, ἀπὸ τότε Matt. iv. 17 [xvi. 21] xxvi. 16 [ Luke xvi. 16], ἔκπαλαι 
2 Pet. ii. 3, ὑπερλίαν 2 Cor. xi. 5; xii. 11 (cf. ὑπέρευ Xen. Hiero 6, 9); 
or so as to blend with an expressive adverb a preposition that seemed 
weakened by diversified usage (cf. in German: oben auf dem Dache), as 
ὑποκάτω, ὑπεράνω, κατέναντι. Sometimes also-an adverb is strengthened 
by the preposition, as παραυτίκα. To this class belong likewise such nu- 
merals as ἐφάπαξ Rom. vi. 10 etc. (Dio Cass. 1091, 91; 1156, 13, analogous 
to ἐςάπαξ Franke, Demosth. p. 30, πρὸς ἅπαξ Malal. 7, p. 178), ἐπὶ τρίς 
394 Acts x. 16; xi. 10 (among the examples adduced by Kypke II. 48 is the 
ith ed. analogous εἰς τρίς, which occurs in Her. 1, 86; Xen. Cyr. 7,1, 4; cf. Hm. 

Vig. p. 857). Many of these compounds are to be found only in writers 
442 that flourished after the time of Alexander,’ some only in Scholiasts, Lob. 


1Yet és del, és ἔπειτα, és ὀψέ, and the like, occur even in Thuc. 1, 129, 130; 4, 63; 
8, 28. As to ἀπὸ μακρόθεν, and the like, see § 65, 2, p. 603. 


§ 51. USE OF PREPOSITIONS IN CIRCUMLOCUTIONS. 423 


Phryn. p. 46 sqq.; οἷ, however, Kiihner II. 315; several, such as ἀπὸ πέρυσι 
(for which προπέρυσι or ἐκπέρυσι), are not to be met with even there. 
Further, cf. Sept. ἀπὸ ὄπισθεν ("ΠΝ 2) 1 Sam. xii. 20 and Thilo, Act. 
Thom. p.25. (Consistency in the mode of writing these compounds, whether 
connected Krii. 266 or separated, has not been observed even by the most 
recent editors of the N. T.) 

Note 2. The antique usage of employing (simple) prepositions without 
a case for adverbs, has been retained, with certain restrictions, in the prose 376 
style of all periods, Bhdy. 196. In the N. T. we find but a single example ‘th el 
of this: 2 Cor. xi. 23 διάκονοι Χριστοῦ εἰσίν ; --- ὑπὲρ ἐγώ L more. The 
instances which Kypke adduces in Toc. are not all similar. Usually in 
prose such prepositions are supported by ἃ δέ or γε (μετὰ δέ is especially 
frequent) Bhdy. 198. Πρός in addition, besides, may be best compared 
with the above passage, e.g. Dem. 1 Aphob. 556a.; Franke, Demosth. p. 94. 
The form ἔνι with the accent thrown back for ἐνί (ἐν), including the 
substantive verb, occurs several times, see p. 80; Bornem. (Stud. u. Krit. 
1843. S. 108 f.) attempted, but on insufficient grounds, to introduce ἄπο 
far from (Bttm. 11. 378) in Matt. xxiv. 1. 


g51. USE OF PREPOSITIONS IN CIRCUMLOCUTIONS. 


1. When a preposition with a noun forms a circumlocution for 
an adverb or (mostly with the aid of the article) for an adjective, 
the propriety of such a use of the preposition must be shown by a 
reference to its fundamental signification ;! a merely empirical 
treatment might lead to erroneous conclusions. Note, then, 

a. Ard; ¢.g. ἀπὸ μέρους Rom. xi. 25; 2 Cor. i. 14 in part (from 
a part hitherwards), ἀπὸ μιᾶς (γνώμης) Luke xiv. 18 unanimously 
(proceeding from one determination), with one mind. 

b. Διά with the Genitive usually denotes a mental state viewed 
as something mediate, a means: in Heb. xii. 1 δ ὑπομονῆς may 443 
be rendered, with (through) patience, patiently, assidue (similarly 
Rom. viii. 25 δι ὑπομονῆς ἀπεκδεχόμεθα etc., ef. δι’ ἀφροσύνης 
imprudenter Xen. C. 3, 1,18, δ εὐλαβείας timide Dion. H. III. 395 
1360, see Pflugk, Eur. Hel. p. 41), ef. also e.g. δ ἀσφαλείας Thue. th et 
1,17. Ofadifferent nature is Heb. xiii. 22 διὰ βραχέων ἐπέστειλα 
ὑμῖν breviter — properly by means of few (words), paucis — cf. διὰ 
βραχυτάτων Dem. Pant. 624¢., and below, ὃ 64,5. Used adjectively 


1 This is not altogether without difficulty, chiefly because in different languages 
different views of the same relation predominate, e.g. ἀπὸ μέρους zum Theil, in part, 
ἐκ δεξιῶν zur Rechten, on, at, to the right, ab oriente gegen Osten, on, to, towards the 
East. Many phrases, too, arise from abbreviation. 


377 
6th ed. 


444 


494. § 51. USE OF PREPOSITIONS IN CIRCUMLOCUTIONS. 


2 Cor. iii. 11 εἰ τὸ καταργούμενον διὰ δόξης etc. (above, p. 379), it 
denotes a quality with which something is invested. 

c. Eis expresses a degree (wnto) which something reaches, 
Luke xiii. 11 εἰς τὸ παντελές completely (perfectly) wholly (Aclian. 
7, 2, εἰς κάλλιστον Plat. Euthyd. 275 b., és τὸ ἀκριβές Thue. 6, 82); 
this, however, can hardly be called a periphrasis for the adverb. 

ἃ. Ἔκ, e.g. ἐκ μέρους 1 Cor. xii. 27 ex parte (forth from a part). 
Ἔκ is used especially of the standard (secundum), as in ἐκ τῶν 
νόμων secundum leges, legibus convenienter (rule of conduct drawn 
as it were out of the laws) ; henee ἐξ ἐσότητος according to equality, 
equally 2 Cor. viii. 18, é« μέτρου by measure, moderately Jno. iii. 34; 
cf. ἐξ ἀδίκου injuste Xen. Cyr. 8, 8, 18, ἐξ ἴσου Her. 7, 135 ;- Plato, 
rep. 8, 561 b., ἐκ προςηκόντων Thuc. 8, 67; see Ast, Plat. legg. 
p- 267; Bhdy. 230. It also denotes the source: ἐξ ἀνάγκης Heb. 
vii. 12; ef. Thue. 8, 40; 7,27; Dio C. 853, 93 (springing owt of 
necessity i.e. necessarily) ; the same explanation applies to ἐκ 
συμφώνου 1 Cor. vii. 5 ex composito, which, however, under a 
different aspect (in consequence of an agreement), nearly comes 
under the first use. In the phrases οἱ ἐκ πίστεως Gal. iii. T, οἱ ἐκ 
περιτομῆς Acts x. 45, ὁ ἐξ ἐναντίας Tit. ii. 8, of ἐξ ἐριθείας Rom. 
ii. 8, and the like, é« designates party (dependence on), and con- 
sequently belonging to: those of the faith, who belong to the faith ; 
who, as it were, side with faith. Cf. Polyb. 10,16,6; Thuc. 8, 92. 
A relation altogether material is expressed in Mark xi. 20 ἐκ ῥιζῶν 
(out) from the roots, radicitus. The temporal ἐκ τρίτου Matt. 
xxvi. 44 (1 Mace. ix. 1; Babr. 95, 97; 107,16; Evang. apocr. 
p-439; cf. ἐξ ὑστέρου Her.1,108) and the like (where the German, 
on the other hand, says zwm Dritten) for the third time, is doubt- 
less most simply, owt of the third, (commencing) from the third ; 
in later authors we find likewise ἐκ πρώτης Babr. 71, 2, ἐκ 
δευτέρης 114, ὃ. 

e. Ἐν. Instances in which ἐν with a substantive may be taken 
adverbially, as ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, ἐν ἐκτενείᾳ, ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ Matt. xxii. 16 ; 
Mark xiv. 1; Col. iv. 5 ; Acts xvii. 31 (ἐν δίκῃ Plat. Crat. p. 419 d., 
ἐν τάχει Thuc. 1, 90);1 need explanation the less, because we too 
can employ in with the corresponding substantive. The substan- 
tives usually denote abstract ideas, particularly qualities or dispo- 
sitions in which one does something. The use of this preposition 


1 But in Jno. iv. 23, the words ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ, dependent on προΞςκυνήσουσιν, 
must not be resolved and degraded into the adverbs πνευματικῶς καὶ ἀληθῶς ; but ἐν 
denotes the sphere in which the προσκυνεῖν is exercised. 


§52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 495 


with a substantive for an adjective is equally plain, as ἔργα τὰ ἐν 396 


δικαιοσύνῃ, τὸ pévov ἐν δόξῃ (ἐστί) 2 Cor. iii. 11, and the like. 

2. f. Ἐπί is frequently construed with the Gen. of abstract 
nouns which denote either a quality with which a person acts in 
a given way (ἐπ᾽ ἀδείας with fearlessness), or an objective notion 
with the actual existence of which something accords, as in Mark 
xii. 82 ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας in accordance with truth, truly (Dio C. 699, 
65; 727,82). With the Dat. ἐπί indicates, as it were, the ground 
on which something rests, Acts ii. 26 ἡ σάρξ μου κατασκηνώσει 
ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι with, in hope, confidence (in God); hence securely, 
tranquilly. The phrases ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον, ἐπὶ πολύ present 
no difficulty. 

g. Κατά. The expression ἡ κατὰ βάθους πτωχεία 2 Cor. viii. 2 
is probably to be rendered, poverty extending to the lowest level, 
the deepest poverty (cf. Strabo 9, 419); Xen. Cyr. 4, 6, 5 is not 
parallel to this, ὁ κατὰ γῆς means: terra conditus. Probably the 
adverbial phrase καθ᾽ ὅλου properly signifies throughout (in uni- 
versum), in general, as κατά with the Gen. has sometimes this 
meaning. The use of κατά with the Acc. of a substantive in 


circumlocutions for adverbs, as κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν, κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, κατὰ 378 
γνῶσιν, requires no explanation, see Schaef. Long. p. 330 (cf. κατὰ Sth ed. 


τάχος Dio. C. 84, 40; 310, 93, κατὰ τὸ ἰσχυρόν Her. 1, 76, καθ᾽ 
ὁρμήν Soph. Philoct. 562, κατὰ τὸ ἀνεπιστῆμον Aeschin. dial. 8, 16, 
κατὰ τὸ ὀρθόν Her. 7, 143), see Bhdy. 241. As to ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν 
πρόθεσις Rom. ix. 11, of κατὰ φύσιν κλάδοι xi. 21, see § 80, 8, note 5. 

ἢ. Πρός with the Acc., e.g. Jas. iv. 5 πρὸς φθόνον invidiose, ef. 
πρὸς ὀργήν Soph. El. 369 (properly, according to envy, according 
to anger); besides, πρὸς ἀκρίβειαν Sext. Emp. hypot. 1, 126 for 
ἀκριβῶς. 


As to the use of the prepositions ἐκ, κατά etc. in circumlocutions for 445 


certain cases, especially the Genitive, see § 30, 3, note 5 p- 192 sq. 


§52. CONSTRUCTION OF VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH 
PREPOSITIONS. 


1. Our attention here will naturally be confined to those com- 
pound verbs in which the preposition preserves its peculiar and 
independent force, and so directly governs a noun different from 


that governed by the transitive verb; as, ἐκβάλλειν to cast out froms-—— 


ἀναφέρειν to bring up upon, etc. Accordingly, we do not speak 
54 . 
\ 


ς:. 


=> 


\ 


496 § 52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 


of those in which the signification of the preposition is either ob- 

scured (e.g. ἀποδέχεσθαι, ἀποκρίνεσθαι, ἀποθνήσκειν), or blended 

with that of the verb into one general idea (e.g. μεταδιδόναι impart, 

προάγειν τινά praeire aliquem, precede some one, ἀποδεκατοῦν τι to 

tithe something, συγκλείειν τι enclose something), or, approximating 
397 to the nature of an adverb, serves to give intensity to the verb (e.g. 
“Ith ed. ἐπιζητεῖν, διατελεῖν, διακαθαρίζειν, συντελεῖν, perpuguare). 


The full import of the compound verbs of the N. T., and how far they 
may be employed for simple verbs, has not yet been investigated thoroughly 
and on rational principles; οἷ, however, C. F. Fritzsche: Fischer’s and 
Paulus’s Observations on the precise Import of the Prepositions in Greek 
Compound Verbs, ete. Lips. 1809. 8vo.; Tittmann de vi praepositionum 
in verbis compos. in N.T. recte diiudicandis, Lips. 1814. 4to. (also in 
Synonym. Ν. Τὶ I. 218 sqq.) ; J. v. Voorst de usu verbor. 6. praeposs. 
compositor. in Ν, T. Leid. 1818. 2 Spec. 8vo.; Theol. Annal. 1809. IT. 
474 ff. (Brunck, Aristoph. nub. 987; Zell, Aristotel. ethic. p. 383; Stallb. 
Plat. Gorg. p. 154). Till very lately translators and expositors of the 
N. T. appeared to vie with each other in disregarding the exact import of 
compound verbs (cf. e.g. Seyffarth de indole ep. ad Hebr. p. 92). With 
a view to check such recklessness I have commenced a new inquiry into 
the subject: De verbor. 6. praeposs. compositor. in N. T. usu, Lips. 1834 ff. 
4to.; hitherto five articles have appeared. (As to Greek authors in 
general, ef. Cattier, Gazophylac. sec. 10, p. 60 sqq. ed. Abresch; Οὐ. F. 

446 Hachenberg, de significat. praepositionum graec. in compositis. Traj. ad 
Rh. 1771. 8vo.) 


979 2. Compound verbs in which the preposition retains its dis- 
θὲ} ed. tinctive force may have one or another of the three following con- 
structions : 
a. The preposition may be repeated before the noun, as Matt. 
vii. 23 ἀποχωρεῖτε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, Heb. iii. 16 οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αὐγύπτου, 
see Born. Xen. conv. p. 219 and my second Progr. de verb. compp. 
Ῥ. 7 sqq.; or 
b. Another preposition of substantially the same import may 
be used before the noun, as Matt. xiv. 19 ἀναβλέψας εἰς τὸν 
οὐρανόν, Mark xv. 46 προςεκύλισε λίθον ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν ; or 
6. The compound verb may, without the intervention of a prep- 
osition, directly govern a case such as its import requires, and 
such at the same time as the preposition also commonly governs ; 
as, Mark iii. 10 ἐπιπίπτειν αὐτῷ, Luke xv. 2 συνεσθίει αὐτοῖς, etc. 
Accordingly, verbs compounded with ἀπό, κατά (ayainst), πρό, 
take the Gen.; those compounded with περὶ (Matt. iv. 23 περιάγειν 
τὴν Γαλιλαίαν, Acts ix. 3), the Acc. 


Ν 


§ 52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 427 


3. Which of these modes of construction is the regular one, 
must be learned from usage. Sometimes two of them, or all three 
together, occur (cf. ἐπιβάλλειν, likewise parallel passages such as 
Matt. xxvii. 60 and Mark xv. 46; Jno. ix. 6 and vs. 11; Acts 
xv. 20 and vs. 29).: Yet it must not be overlooked that even in 
this case usage has often established a distinction. Thus no one g9g 
will regard it as an indifferent matter whether verbs compounded ith ed 
with εἰς be construed with a noun by the insertion of the preposi- 
tion εἰς (πρός), or with a case alone without a preposition.? For 
instance, ἐκπίπτειν in its proper sense takes ἐκ ; but when used 
figuratively (like spe excidere), it governs the Gen. (Gal. v. 4; 
2 Pet. iii. 17; Philostr. Apoll. 1,36; yet see Diod. S. 17, 47).? 
So προςφέρειν τινί of persons means, offerre alicui (aliquid) ; but 
προςφέρειν ἐπὶ τὰς συναγωγάς to bring before the synagogue(author- 447 
ities), Luke xii. 114 Cf. also προςέρχεσθαί τινι adire aliquem and 
προςέρχ. πρὸς Tov Χριστόν 1 Pet. ii. 4; ἐφιστάναι τινί (of persons) 
Acts iy. 1, and ἐφιστάναι ἐπὶ τὴν οἰκίαν xi. 11. See, in general, 
my second Progr. de verb. compp. p. 10 sqq. 

4, The usage of the N. T. is more particularly as follows: 

1) After verbs compounded with ἀπό, 

a) for the most part ἀπό is repeated (cf., in general, Erfurdt, 
Soph. Oed. R. p. 225): so after ἀπέρχεσθαι (followed by a personal 
noun) Mark i. 42; Luke i. 38; ii. 15; Rev. xviii. 14 (Lucian. 580 
salt. 81), after ἀποπίπτειν Acts ix. 18 (in a material sense, cf, δ οὐ, 
Her. 8, 180; Polyb. 11, 21, 3; in a figurative sense it does not 
occur in the N. T.), ἀφιστάναι desistere a, or to withdraw from a 
person, Acts v. 88; Luke ii. 37; xiii. 27; 2 Cor. xii. 8; 1 Tim. 

vi. 5 etc. (Polyb. 1, 16, 3) but 1 Tim. iv. 1, see below, ἀπορφανί- 
ζεσθαι 1 Thess. ii. 17, ἀποσπᾶσθαι Luke xxii. 41; Acts xxi. 1 
(Polyb. 1, 84,1; Dion. H. judic. Thue. 28, 5), after ἀφορίξζειν Matt. 
xxv. 32, ἀποβαίνειν Luke v. 2 (Polyb. 23, 11. 4, etc.), ἀποχωρεῖν 
Matt. vii. 23; Luke ix. 39, ἀφαιρεῖσθαι Luke x. 42; xvi. 3 (Lucian. 
Tim. 45), ἀπαίρεσθαι Matt. ix. 15, ἀπαλλάττεσθαι Luke xii. 58; 


1 So ἀποστῆναι deficere with ἀπό in Xen. C. 5, 4,1 and with the Gen. alone in 4, 5, 11. 

2 In prose eisseva: or εἰξέρχεσθαι εἰς is usually employed in a local sense, e.g. εἰς τὴν 
οἰκίαν ; but with τινά or τινί (like incessere aliquem) in reference to desires, thoughts, 
etc. Demosth. Aristocr. 446b.; Herod. 8, 8, 4, etc. Yet see Valck. Eurip. Phoen. 
1099, As to εἰξέρχεσθαι in particular, see my second Progr. de yerb. compp. p. 11 sq. 

8 In Greek authors ἀπέχεσθαι abstinere usually takes the Gen. ; but in the N. T. it is 
sometimes followed by ἀπό, Acts xv. 20; 1 Thess. ivy. 3; y. 22. 

“Cf. πρὸς τοῖς ἱστοῖς τροχιλίαι mposhptnyto Polyb. 8, 6, 5; 8, 46, 8, but (fig.) 9, 20, 
5 προξαρτᾶν πολλά Twa τῇ στρατηγίᾳ. 


428 § 52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 


Acts xix. 12, ἀποκρύπτειν Matt. xi. 25, ἀποστρέφειν Rom. xi. 26 
Sept., once also after the figurative ἀποθνήσκειν Col. ii. 20 (cf. 
Porphyr. abstin. 1, 41), which elsewhere, in the composite sense 
of dying to, is construed with the Dat. (see immediately below). 

b) after ἀπολαμβάνειν, παρά is used (with personal nouns), Luke 
vi. 84; cf. Diod. 8. 18, 31; Lucian. pisc. 7 (ἀπό, when the verb 
signifies to take away by force, Polyb. 22, 26, 8). 

c) the Genitive follows ἀποφεύγειν 2 Pet. i. 4 (but not in 2 Pet. 

. i. 20), ἀπαλλοτριοῦν Eph. ii. 12; iv. 18 (Polyb. 8, 77, 7), ἀφιστάναι 
(deficere a) 1 Tim. iv. 1 (Polyb. 2, 39,7; 14,12,8), ἀποστερεῖσθαι 
(fig.) 1 Tim. vi. δ. 

d) the Dat. is used after ἀποθνήσκειν to die to a thing, Gal. ii. 19 ; 
Rom. vi. 2, (in Rom. vi. 10 the Dat. is to be taken differently) ; 
similar is ἀπογίνεσθαι ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις 1 Pet. ii. 24. 

899 2) Verbs compounded with dvd in the local sense of up (to), 
Τὰ οἱ, are construed with, 
a) eis, when the place to which the motion is directed is indi- 
cated, e.g. ἀναβαίνειν to go (travel) wp to Luke xix. 28; Mark 
448 x. 32 (Her. 9, 113), or go up (upon a mountain, into heaven etc.) 
Matt. v. 1; xiv. 23; Mark iii. 18 (Herod. 1, 12,16; Plat. Alcib. 
1, 117}. ; Dio C. 89, 97), ἀναβλέπειν Matt. xiv. 19 (Mark vii. 34; 
Luke ix. 16) Acts xxii. 18, ἀνάγειν Matt. iv. 1; Luke ii. 22; 
Acts xx. 3 (Herod. 7, 10,15), ἀναλαμβάνεσθαι Mark xvi. 19, ἀνα- 
πίπτειν Luke xiv. 10, ἀναφέρειν Matt. xvii. 1; Luke xxiv. 51, 
ἀναχωρεῖν Matt. ii. 14; iv. 12 etc., ἀνέρχεσθαι Jno. vi. 3; Gal. i. 18. 

Ὁ) πρός, principally when the point at which the motion ter- 
minates is a person; as, ἀναβαίνειν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα Jno. xx. 17, 
ἀνακάμπτειν Matt. ii. 12, dvartéurew Luke xxiii. T (ἀναβλέπ. πρός 
twa Plat. Phaed. 116 d.; Arrian. Epict. 2, 16, 41), yet ἐπί τινα is 
also used in such cases Luke x. 6 (ἀνακάμπτειν cf. Diod. 8. 3,17), 
or the Dat. Luke xxiii. 11 ἀναπέμπειν τινί. 

6) ἐπί, when the goal of the action is to be designated definitely 
as an eminence or as a surface on which the motion terminates, 
(Polyb. 8, 81, 1 ἀναφέρειν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀγοράν (up) to the market, on 
the other hand ἀναβαίνειν ἐπὶ τὴν οἰκίαν like the Latin ascendere 
Polyb. 10, 4, 6, ἀναβαίνειν ἐπὶ δικαστήριον frequently in Greek 
authors). Thus we find ἀναβιβάζειν ἐπὶ τὸν αἰγιαλόν Matt. xiii. 48 
(Xen. 6. 4, 2,28; Polyb. 7,17, 9), ἐπὶ τὸ κτῆνος Luke x. 34 
(Palaeph. 1,9; Xen. C. 4, 5,16; cf. 7,1, 38), ἀνακλίνεσθαι ἐπὶ 
τοὺς χόρτους Matt. xiv. 19, ἀναπίπτειν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν Matt. xv. 35 or 
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς Mark viii. 6, ἀναβαίνειν ἐπὶ τὸ δῶμα Luke v. 19, ἐπὶ 


§52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 429 


συκομορέαν xix. 4 (οἷ. Xen. C. 4,1, 7; 6,4,4; Her. 4, 22; Plut. 
educ. 7,13; Arrian. Epict. 3, 24, 33; Lys.1; Alcib. 10; Paus. 6, 381 
4, 6), ἀναφέρειν ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον upon the wood (cross) 1 Pet. ii. 24,1 6th ed 
ἀνακάμπτειν ἐπί Luke x. 6 (Plut. educ. 17, 13). 

3) Verbs compounded with ἀντέ (against) are regularly fol- 
lowed by the Dat., as Matt. vii. 2; Luke xiii. 17; Jno. xix. 12; 
Rom. xiii. 2 οἷο. ; yet see Heb. xii. 4 ἀνταγωνίζεσθαι πρός τι (οἴ. 
vs. 8 ἡ εἰς αὐτὸν ἀντιλογίαν , similar to which is ἀντικεῖσθαι πρός 
Polyb. 2, 66, 3; Dio C. p. 204 and 777. 

4) Verbs compounded with ἐκ are sometimes followed by that 
preposition (i.e. when out of is to be expressed), and sometimes 
merely by ἀπό or παρά (i.e. when merely direction from or from 
the vicinity of is indicated): thus ἐκβάλλειν ἔκ Matt. xiii. 52; Jno. 

ii. 15; 3 Jno. 10, ete. (Plat. Gorg. 468d.) and ἀπό Matt. vii. 4, 
ἐκκλίνειν ἀπό 1 Pet. iii. 11; Rom. xvi. 17, ἐκκόπτειν ἐκ Rom. xi. 24 
(Diod. 8. 16, 24), ἐκπίπτειν ἐκ Acts xii. T (Arrian. Ind. 30, 3), 449 
ἐκλέγεσθαι ἐκ Jno. xv. 19 (Plat. legg. 7 p. 8lla.), ἐκπορεύεσθαι ἐκ 
Matt. xv. 11,18; Rev.ix. 18 (Polyb. 6,58,4) and ἀπό Mark vii. 15 400 
(var., not Matt. xxiv. 1) or παρά Jno. xv. 26, ἐκφεύγειν ἐκ Acts Thad 
xix. 16, ἐξαίρειν and ἐξαιρεῖν ἐκ 1 Cor. v.2; Acts xxvi.1T, ἐξέρχεσθαι 

ἐκ Matt. ii. 6; Acts vii. 3 ete. (Her. 9,12) or παρά Luke ii. 1. 

On the other hand these verbs are but rarely construed with the 
Genitive, never when used in a local sense except ἐξέρχεσθαι Matt. 

x. 14 (and even there not quite indubitably, see the variants; yet 

cf. ἐκβαίνειν twos Jacobs, Philostr. p.718); when used figuratively, 
however, the Gen. is constant with ἐκπίπτειν (like spe excidere) 
Gal. vy. 4; 2 Pet. ili. 17; Plat. rep. 6, 496 ο. ; Lucian. contempl. 

14 (yet with ἐκ Her. 3,14; Dio C. p. 1054, 57), and ἐκκρέμασθαι 
Luke xix. 48. Lastly, ἐκφεύγειν even in a physical sense takes 
the Ace. (of the force): 2 Cor. xi. 33 ἐκφεύγειν tas χεῖράς τινος 
(Sus. 22), cf. Her. 6,40 and frequently ; ἐκ occurs after this verb 
merely to denote locality in Acts xix. 16 ἐκφυγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου, cf. 

Sir. xxvii. 20. 

5) The construction of verbs compounded with ἐν is very sim- 
ple: when they signify direction to (towards) something, they 
are followed by εἰς ; when they denote rest in, or on, a place, they 
are followed by ἐν, e.g. ἐμβαίνειν eis Matt. viii. 23; xiv. 22; Jno. 

vi. 17 (Her. 2, 29; Plat. Crat. 397 a.), ἐμβάλλειν εἰς Luke xii. 5 
(Dio C. p. 288, 79; Plat. Tim. 91 ο. ; Lucian. Tim. 21), ἐμβάπτειν 
eis Mark xiv. 20 (but with ἐν Matt. xxvi. 23 dip in the dish), 


1 With the Acc. alone we find ἀναβαίνειν ἵππον, Dion. H. 2252, 7; Pausan. 10, 19, 6. 


430 § 52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 


ἐμβλέπειν εἰς Matt. vi. 26; Acts i. 11, ἐμπίπτειν εἰς Luke x. 36 
(Her. 7, 43; Plat. Tim. 84 6. ; Lucian. Hermot. 59) 1 Tim. iii. 6, 
ἐμπτύειν εἰς Matt. xxvi. 67; xxvii. 80, but ἐνδημεῖν ἐν 2 Cor. v. 6, 
ἐνοικεῖν ἐν 2 Cor. vi. 16; Col. iii. 16 (with Acc. Her. 2,178), ἐνεργεῖν 
ἐν Phil. ii. 18; Hph. i. 20 ete., ἐγγράφειν ἐν 2 Cor. iii. 2 (like ἐγγλύ- 
dew ἐν Her. 2, 4), ἐμμένειν ἐν (τῇ διαθήκῃ) Heb. viii. 9. At the 
same time, in both significations the construction with the Dat. 
occurs not unfrequently, cf. ἐμβλέπειν τινί (οἵ a person) Mark 
x. 21, 27; Luke xxii. 61; Jno. i. 86, 48 (Plat. rep. 10, 609 d. ; 
Polyb. 15, 28,3), ἐμπτύειν τινί Mark x. 34; xiv. 65; xv.19, ἐμμένειν 
τινί (πίστει) Acts xiv. 22 (Xen. Mem. 4, 4, 4; Lycurg. 19, 4; 
882 Lucian. Tim. 102). ᾿Εντρυφᾶν to revel in something is construed 
shel in Greek authors with the Dat. alone (e.g. Diod. S. 19, 71) ;,on 
the other hand, in 2 Pet. ii. 13 ἐν is repeated. In Rom. xi. 24 
éyxevtpifew is construed first with εἰς and then with the Dat. 
6) Still more simple is the construction of verbs compounded 
with εἰς, such as εἰςάγειν, εἰςπορεύεσθαι, εἰςφέρειν, εἰςξέρχεσθαι; viz. 
450 they uniformly repeat εἰς, οἵ, Poppo, Thue. 1Π1.1. 210; yet see Hm. 
Eurip. Ion p. 98, and my second Progr. de Verb. compp. p. 138. 
7) Of the verbs compounded with ἐπί, some are construed with 
that preposition (niore rarely with εἰς), and some with the Dative 
alone; yet many take either construction indifferently: ἐπιβάλλειν 
εἰς (into) or ἐπέ τι (upon Plat. Prot. 334 b.) Mark iv. 87; Luke 
γ. 36; ix. 62, also with the Dat. of the person 1 Cor. vii. 35; Mark 
401 xi. 7; Acts iv. 3 (Polyb. 8, 2,8; 8, 5, δ).1 ἐπιβαίνειν ἐπί or εἰς 
Τὰ οἱ, Acts xxi. 6; xx. 18 (Matt. xxi. 5), also with a local Dat. Acts 
xxvii. 2 (Polyb. 1, 5,2; Diod. 5. 16, 66), ἐπιβλέπειν ἐπί Luke 
i. 48; Jas. ii. 3; Plut. educ. 4, 9 (with eds. Plat. Phaedr. 63 a.), 
ἐπικεῖσθαι ἐπί twt Jno. xi. 88, also with the Dat. of the person 
1 Cor. ix. 16, ἐπιπίπτειν ἐπί τι Luke i. 12; Acts x. 10, or ἐπί rue 
Acts viii. 16, or with the Dat. of the person Mark iii. 10; Acts 
xx. 10 (Polyb. 1, 24, 4), ἐπιῤῥίπτειν ἐπί τι 1 Pet. v. T, ἐπιτιθέναι 
ἐπί τι Mark iv. 21; Matt. xxiii. 4; Acts ix. 17 etc., or with the 
Dative, mostly of the person Luke xxiii. 26; Mark vii. 32; Acts 
ix. 12; 1 Tim. v. 22 ete., rarely of the thing Jno. xix. 2 (Lucian. 
Tim. 41, 122), ἐπέρχεσθαι ἐπί τι Luke i. 85; Acts viii. 24; xiii. 40 
or with the Dative of the thing Luke xxi. 26, ἐπαίρειν ἐπί or εἴς τὸ 
Jno. xiii. 18; Luke xviii. 18, ἐποικοδομεῖν ἐπί τι 1 Cor. iii. 12 or 


1 On ἐπιβάλλειν τὴν χεῖρα ἐπί τινα and τινι (Lucian. Tim. 10) in particular, see Fr. 
Mr. p. 637. We find in a material sense in Polyaen. 5, 2,12 ποίᾳ πόλει βούλοιτο 
ἐπιπλεῦσαι. 


§ 52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 431 


τινε Eph. ii. 20, but also ἐν Col. ii. 7, ἐπιδεῖν ἐπί τι Acts iv. 29, 
ἐπιφέρειν with thé Dat. of the thing Phil. i. 17, ἐφικνεῖσθαι εἴς τινα 
2 Cor. x. 14, ἐφάλλεσθαι ἐπί τινα Acts xix. 16 (1 Sam. x.6; xi. 6). 
On the other hand, ἐπυγράφειν is construed with ἐν, 2 Cor. iii. 2 
ef. Plat. de lucri cupid. p. 229 ete.; Palaeph. 47, 5 (differently in 
Num. xvii. 2; Prov. vii. 8). ᾿Επεκτείνεσθαι. Phil. iii. 14 (stretch 
one’s self out after) and, when joined to names of persons, ἐπιφαί- 
νειν and ἐπιφαύειν invariably take the Dative alone, Eph. v. 14; 
Luke i. 79 (cf. Gen. xxxv. 7); so also does ἐπιφέρειν in the sense 
of adding something to something, Phil. i. 17. ᾿Επισκιάζειν has 
sometimes the Dative of the person, as in Acts v. 15 and probably 
in Mark ix. T (to make a sheltering shade for one, ef. Ps. xc. 4), 
and sometimes the Ace. Matt. xvii. 5; Luke ix. 34 (overshadow, 
envelope, as transitive). In the Sept. we find also ἐπισκιάζ. ἐπί 
twa Ps. exxxix. 8; Exod. xl. 29. 

8) Of the verbs compounded with διά, there are but few in 
which the preposition is particularly prominent: cf. in the N. T. 
διαπορεύεσθαι διὰ σπορίμων Luke vi. 1, cf. Ὁ. S: exe. Vat. p. 30 
(but we find also διαπορεύεσθαι πόλεις, yet in the sense of obire, 451 
Acts xvi. 4), διέρχεσθαι διά Matt. xii. 43; 2 Cor. i. 16 to pass 
through (and consequently out of) something, cf. Strabo 8, 332, 
and the pregnant διασώζειν δι’ ὕδατος 1 Pet. iii. 20. Most of them 
are construed like transitives, with the Acc., e.g. διαπλεῖν sail 383 
through Acts xxvii. 5, likewise διέρχεσθαι when it signifies pase ‘th ob 
through Luke xix. 1; Acts xv. 3, διαβαίνειν Heb. xi. 29 ete. 

9) Verbs compounded with κατά which denote an action de- 
scending upon a local point, take ἀπό or ἐκ when the terminus 
a quo is to be expressed, e.g. καταβαίνειν ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ Luke 
ix, 54; 1 Thess. iv. 16, καταβ. ἐκ τοῦ οὐρ. Ino. iii. 13; vi. 41; 
when the terminus ad quem is to be indicated (Dio C. 108, 23; 
141, 96) they take ἐπί, εἰς, or πρός, according to the respective 
nature of the point in view, Luke xxii. 44; Mark xiii. 15; Acts 
xiv. 11, perhaps the Dative alone in Acts xx. 9 καταφέρεσθαι ὕπνῳ." 

On the other hand, καθῆσθαι, καθίζειν, κατατιθέναι ἔν τινι signify 402 
to set down on some place, etc. Κατηγορεῖν to accuse, in as far Tthed 
as the notion of κατά is retained, is usually construed with the 
Gen. of the person; κατηγορεῖν te κατά τινος occurs once, Luke 
xxiii. 14, and similarly ἐγκαλεῖν κατά τινος Rom. viii. 33; cf. Soph. 
Philoct. 328. Analogous to κατηγορεῖν with the Gen. is Rom. 


1 As we find elsewhere καταφέρεσθαι εἰς ὕπνον or ἐφ᾽ ὕπνῳ, see Kiihnél in loc. Other- 
wise ὕπνῳ might also be taken as Ablative. 


482 § 52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 


xi. 18 κατακαυχᾶσθαί τίνος boast against something cf. Jas. ii. 13, 
and καταμαῤτυρεῖν twos Matt. xxvi. 62; xxvii. 18; but κατακαυχ. 
κατά Twos Jas. iii. 14. 

10) Verbs compounded with μετά in which this preposition 
signifies trans, as μεταβαίνειν, μεταμορφοῦν, μετασχηματίζειν, μετα- 
νοεῖν, μετοικίζειν etc., naturally take εἰς to denote passing over into, 
cf. Vig. p. 639. 

11) Verbs compounded with παρά, are followed by ἀπό or Tapa 
(yet see ὃ 47 pp. 365, 369 ff.) when the place whence is to be ex- 
pressed, e.g. Acts i. 25 ἀφ᾽ ἧς (ἀποστολῆς) παρέβη (Deut. xvii. 20; 
Josh. xi. 15, ete.), according to others ἐξ ἧς (Deut. ix. 12, 16) ; 
παραλαμβάνειν ἀπό τινος 1 Cor. xi. 23 and παρά τ. 1 Thess. iv. 1; 

, 2 Thess. iii. 6, παραφέρειν ἀπό τ. Mark xiv. 86; Luke xxii. 42, 
παρέρχεσθαι ἀπό τ. Matt. v. 18; Mark xiv. 35. 

12) Most verbs compounded with περί have become regular 
transitives, and accordingly govern the Acc. ; as, περιέρχεσθαι 
1 Tim. v. 13 (obire), περιζωννύναι Eph. vi. 14, περιϊστάναι Acts 
xxv. 7. In a material sense, with περί repeated, we find once 

452 περιαστράπτειν Acts xxii. 6 (in the parallel passage Acts ix. 3 it 
is used as transitive), περιζώννυσθαι Rev. xv. 6 (περὶ τὰ στήθη), 
περικεῖσθαι Mark ix. 42; Luke xvii. 2 (περισπᾶσθαι Luke x. 40), 
but with Dat. περιπίπτειν (λῃσταῖς, πειρασμοῖς) Luke x. 80; Jas. 
i. 2 (Thue. 2,54; Polyb. 8,53, 6; Lycurg. 19, 1) and περικεῖσθαι 
Heb. xii. 1. 

13) Of verbs compounded with πρό, only προπορεύεσθαι Luke 
i. 76 repeats the preposition: προπορεύσῃ πρὸ προςώπου κυρίου 
(Deut. ix. 3); in the Sept. ἐνώπιον is also used Ps. lxxxiv. 14; 
xevi. 3 and ἔμπροσθεν Gen. xxxii. 16; Isaiah lviii. 8. So in Luke 
i. 17 προέλεύσεται ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ (but in xxii. 47 προήρχετο αὐτούς). 
Further, see above, No. 2. 

14) Verbs compounded with πρός repeat that preposition when 
towards in a local sense is to be indicated, e.g. προςπίπτειν πρὸς 
τοὺς πόδας τινός Mark vii. 25; cf. Dio C. 982, 82; 1275, 53 (but 
προςπίπτειν τοῖς γόνασι Diod. S. 17, 13), προςτίθεσθαι πρὸς τοὺς 

884 πατέρας Acts xiii. 86; also προςκολλᾶσθαι πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα cleave 
bth el. 49 his wife Mark x. 7; Eph. v. 81. On the other hand, with ἐπί 
in Matt. vi. 27 προςτιθέναι ἐπὶ τὴν ἡλικίαν. More rarely the Dat. 
alone is used, e.g. προςέρχ. ὄρει Heb. xii. 22, προςπίπτειν οἰκίᾳ Matt. 
vii. 25 (Xen. eq. 7,63; Philostr. Apol. v. 21), and of direction, 
προςφωνεῖν τινι call to Matt. xi. 16; Acts xxii. 2, ef. Diod. S. 4, 
48 (but προςφωνεῖν τινα call one hither Luke vi. 13). On the other 





§ 58. CONJUNCTIONS. | 433 


hand, the Dat. alone is almost invariably used when the object ap- 493 
proached is a person, e.g. προςπίπτειν τινί (to fall down before Τὴ οἰ, 
one) Mark iii. 11; v. 33; Acts xvi. 29, προςφέρειν τινί (Philostr. 
Apol. v. 22), προςέρχεσθαί τινι to draw near to one, or when 
the approaching is itself to be taken figuratively, e.g. mposayew 
τῷ θεῷ to bring to God 1 Pet. iii. 18 (in Sept. rposwyew τῷ κυρίῳ 
frequently), προςκλίνεσθαί τινι to attach one’s self to Acts v. 36 
ef. προςέχειν τινί Heb. vii. 13; Acts xvi. 14, προςεύχεσθαί τινι Matt. 
vi.6; 1 Cor. xi. 13, προςτιθέναι λόγον τινί Heb. xii. 19, προςτίθεσθαι 
τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ Acts ii. 41. If the verb implies rest (πρός τινι), it is 
construed either thus with the Dat. alone, as προςμένειν τινί Acts 
xi. 23; 1 Tim. v. 5, προςεδρεύειν 1 Cor. ix. 18 (Polyb. 8, 9,11; 38, 
5, 9), προςκαρτερεῖν Mark iii. 9; Col. iv. 2; Rom. xii.12; cf. Polyb. 
1, 55,4; 1,59, 12; Diod. S. 20, 48 etc., or (in strictly local rela- 
tions) with ἐν, e.g. mposwévew ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ 1 Tim. i. 3. 

15) Verbs compounded with σύν but rarely repeat that preposi- 
tion Col. ii. 13 (συζωοποιεῖν), or take instead of it wera (Weber, 
Demosth. 210) Matt. xxv. 19 (cvvatpew), 2 Cor. viii. 18 (συμπέμ- 
mew), Matt. xx. 2 (συμφωνεῖν), xvii. 3 (συλλαλεῖν), Mark xiv. 54; 453 
they are most frequently construed with the Dat. alone, instances 
of which occur on nearly every page of the N. T. (also in 1 Cor. 
xiii. 6; Jas. ii. 22, not in Rom. vii. 22). In classical Greek this 
construction is almost the only one used. Acts i. 26 συγκατεψη- 
φίσθη μετὰ τῶν ἕνδεκα ἀποστόλων is a pregnant expression. 

16) Of the verbs' compounded with ὑπτό none repeat the prepo- 
sition ; but when they denote direction towards (ὑπάγειν, ὑποστρέ- 
gew etc.) they take εἰς or πρός, and when the ὕπό means wnder, 
as in ὑποπλεῖν, they are used as transitives. 

17) Verbs compounded with ὑπέρ are for the most part used 
absolutely. Only ὑπερεντυγχάνειν repeats ὑπέρ Rom. viii. 26 (var.), 
ef. Judith v.21; Sir. xxxvi. 27; and ὑπερφρονεῖν is construed with 
mapa in Rom. xii. 3. Ὑπερβαίνειν in 1 Thess. iv. 6 and ὑπεριδεῖν 
in Acts xvii. 30 are used transitively in a figurative sense. 


Note. The N. T. contains no decided instance of the usage, not very 
rare in Greek authors, according to which the preposition of a compound 
verb influences also a second verb (Franke, Dem. p. 30). 


8 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 


1. Conjunctions, particles designed to connect words and sen- 


tences, classify themselves according to the various species of 
55 


434 § 58, CONJUNCTIONS. 


connection, which are the same in all cultivated languages and are 
385 eight in number (Krii. 808); ef. O. Jahn, grammaticor. gr. de 
6th οὐ, conjunctionibus doctrina Gryph. 1847. 
The primitive conjunctions are monosyllabic: καί, τοι, re, δέ, μέν, 
404 οὖν. Many are obviously derived from pronouns or adjectives: 
Tthel. ὅτε, ὅτι, ὡς, Tor, ἀλλά etc. Others are compound: ἐάν (εἰ dv), 
ἐπεί, ὥςτε, yap (ye apa), τοΐνυν ete. Some are construed with a 
454 particular mood according to their signification (εἰ, ἐάν, iva, ὅπως, 
ὅτε etc.). See, in general, Hm. emend. p. 164 sqq. 

The principal conjunctions (of all the various classes) used in 
Greek prose are employed in the N.T., and in their legitimate 
senses. But τοι, μήν (by themselves) do not occur; many com- 
pounds also, the more refined niceties of expression (e.g. γοῦν), 
were unnecessary in the style of the N. T. 


It is further to be specially remarked, that causal conjunctions (as ὅτι, 
ἐπεί, ἐπειδή) originally designated for the most part something present, 
either tangible or temporal ;— a connection of ideas observable also in 
the case of prepositions (p. 360 sq.), and which occurs likewise in Latin 
and German (quod, quoniam, quando, quandoquidem, weil). 


2. The most simple and most general connection of words and 
sentences, the mere coupling of contiguous words and sentences, 
is formed by καί and τε (et and que), the latter of which occurs 
oftenest in Luke, particularly in the Acts, and then in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews: Matt. ii. 13 παράλαβε τὸ παιδίον καὶ τὴν μητέρα 
αὐτοῦ Kal φεῦγε εἰς Αὔγυπτον, Acts x. 22 ἀνὴρ φοβούμενος τ. θεόν, 
μαρτυρούμενός τε ὑπὸ ὅλου τοῦ ἔθνους, iv. 18 θεωροῦντες... ἐθαύμα- 
ζον, ἐπεγίνωσκόν τε αὐτούς etc. The distinction between καί and 
τε is this: καί is conjunctive (of something co-ordinate), τε is” 
adjunctive (of something accessary). Says Hermann, καί con- 
jungit, τε adjungit ; with which cf. Klotz, Devar. Il. 744.2 Hence 
τε denotes rather an internal (logical) relation ; καί, rather an 
external. 


Observation shows that in the N.T. also τεῦ designates something 


1 Schleiermacher, Hermen, 8. 66 goes too far; on §. 130 his opinion is more correct. 
It is only in reference to the position of certain conjunctions that the language of the 
N. T. departs from the earlier prose. 

2 Cf. the different views of philologists as to καί and τε (originating in ro: Hm. Soph. 
Trach. 1015) Hm. Vig. 835; ad Eurip. Med. p, 331; Hand de partic. τε, Jen. 1832. 
2 Progr. 4to.; Bhdy. 482 f.; Sommer in the n. Jahrbiich. f. Philol. 1831. III. 400 f. ; 
Hartung, Part. I. 58 ff. 

8 As to the Latin que, see Zumpt, Gr. § 333; Hand, Tursellin. II. 467 sq. ; ef. Bauer- 
meister, ΒΟΥ die Copulativpartikeln im Latein. Luckau, 1853. 4to. 


§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 435 


additional, supplementary, explanatory, flowing from what precedes, or 
even its details (Rost 722 f.), Jno. vi. 18; Acts ii. 33, 37; iv. 33; v. 42; 

vi. 7; viii. 13, 28, 31; x. 28,48; xi. 21; xii.6; xv. 4,39; xix. 12; xx. 7; 

xxi. 18; Rom. xvi. 26 ;— hence usually something of inferior importance, 
Jno. iv. 42; Acts xvi. 34. Sometimes, however, re has the effect to give 455 
prominence: in Heb. ix. 1 εἶχε καὶ ἡ πρώτη (διαθήκη) δικαιώματα λατρείας 

τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν, the last particular is subjoined by τε as something 
specific and implied in δικ. Aarp.; but when the author in vs. 2 sqq. speaks 405 
of the sanctuary in detail, he takes this specification as his leading idea. ith ed. 
There is nothing strange in this; for that which is not co-ordinate (καί) 386 
with what precedes but is merely annexed to it, may just as well, accord- tin ed 
ing to circumstances, be more important as less; cf., further, Heb. xii. 2. 
Indeed, it may be remarked generally (Klotz 1. c.), that the private views 

of the writer often have much to do in deciding him to choose re; and 
that re and δέ were early interchanged in the N. T. by transcribers (Acts 

vii. 26; viii. 6; ix. 24; xi. 13; xii. 8,12; xiii. 44; xxvi. 20, etc.). 

3. In the N.T., as in the Biblical style generally, the simple 
connection by means of καί} is often chosen, even where in a more 
artificial diction some more specific conjunction would have been 
employed. This circumstance led the earlier biblical philologists 
to the erroneous assumption, that in the N. T. καί, like the Hebrew 
4, was a sort of conjunction-general, combining in itself the signifi- 
cations of all conjunctions whatever, and of many adverbs besides 
(see still Schleusner’s lexic. under the word). 

But in the N. T., as in Greek authors (Klotz, Devar. II. 635), 
καί has only two significations: and and also. These significa- 
tions, however, comprehend several shades of meaning, which we 
express by special words: thus also is intensified into even, vel, 
adeo (Fr. Rom. I. 270; Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 50). In many 
passages, however, this is not the case, but καί as a simple copula 
was chosen by the writer either in accordance with the simplicity 
of Biblico-Oriental thought, or designedly on rhetorical grounds; 
sometimes both causes concur. A translator should not efface the 
coloring of the style by employing more specific conjunctions. 


1 The and uniting separate clauses deserves perhaps special mention only in the case, 
often overlooked, where a writer tacks one QO. T. quotation to another e.g. Acts i. 20 
γενηθήτω ἡ ἔπαυλις ... ἐν αὐτῇ (Ps. lxix.), καὶ τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν... ἕτερος (Ps. cix.) ; 
Heb. i. 9 f. (see Bleek); Rom. ix. 38. 

? Klotz, as above : In omnibus locis, ubicunque habetur καί particula, aut simpliciter 
copulat duas res, ant ita ponitur ut praeter alias res, quae aut re vera positae sunt aut 
facile cogitatione suppleri possunt, hance vel illam rem esse aut fieri significet, et in 
priore caussa und reddi solet, in posteriore etiam, quoque, vel, sicuti res ac ratio in 
singulis locis requirit. 


456 


436 § 53, CONJUNCTIONS. 


In the narrative style, especially of the first three Gospels, the several 
facts are usually strung together in simple succession by καί; whereas the 
use of δέ or οὖν, μετὰ τοῦτο, εἶτα, etc. instead would give more variety, 
and participial and relative constructions would distinguish with greater 
clearness principal from subordinate matters: Matt. i, 24 f. παρέλαβεν τὴν 
γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν, καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ 
ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, iv. 24 f.; vii. 25,27; Luke v. 17, see § 60. The case 
in which a specification of time is given and then the event attached to it 
by καί, deserves particular attention; as, Mark xv. 25 ἣν dpa τρίτη καὶ 
ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν (a supplementary statement, as it were, to vs. 24) ἐξ 
was the third hour and (when) they crucified him ; — where ὅτε was early 


406 substituted as a correction. From this we must distinguish Luke xxiii. 44 


ith οἱ, 


ἦν ὡςεὶ ὥρα ἕκτη καὶ σκότος ἐγένετο, where if ὅτε were used the time would 


387 be brought out as the principal matter, and the event regarded as subor- 


. 6th ed. 


457 


dinate ; both, however, are to be represented as co-ordinate, — hence kai. 
This structure of a sentence is found also in Greek authors (Mtth. 1481 ; 
May. 214), e.g. Plat. symp. 220 ο. ἤδη ἣν μεσημβρία καὶ ἄνθρωποι ἠσθάνοντο, 
Arrian. Al. 60, 9, 8 ἤδη πρὸς τῇ ἐπάλξει ἦν kat... ὦθει, Thuc. 1, 50; Xen. 
A.1,1,8. Still more unlike is the case when, in prophetic announcements, 
the time is first specified and then a clause annexed with καί, -- ἃ con- 
struction which imparts greater solemnity to the discourse: Luke xix. 43 ; 
Heb. viii. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 52. In exhortations also, like αἰτεῖτε καὶ δοθήσεται 
ὑμῖν, Luke x. 28 τοῦτο ποίει καὶ ζήσῃ, the co-ordination of the two verbs 
is more forcible than such a construction as τοῦτο ποιῶν ζήσῃ (Franke, 
Demosth. p. 61). Cf. Demosth. olynth. 8, 11 ¢. ὁρᾶτε ταῦθ᾽ οὕτως ὅπως ... 
καὶ δυνήσεσθε ἐξιέναι Kat μισθὸν ἕξετε. 

In such sentences as 1 Cor. v. 2... and ye are puffed up, Matt. iii. 14 
I haye need to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me, Jno. vi. 70 
have I not chosen you...? and one of you is a traitor, xi. 8; xiv. 30; 
Heb. iii. 9, surprise or sorrow is more eloquently expressed by the simple 
and than by the more sonorous however, nevertheless, notwithstanding ; in 
the mere contraposition of the clauses the contrast speaks as it were for 
itself. On the other hand, in Matt. xxvi. 53 ἢ δοκεῖς, ὅτι od δύναμαι ἄρτι 
παρακαλέσαι τ. πατέρα pov καὶ παραστήσει μοι πλείω δώδεκα λεγεῶνας ἀγγέλων ; 
Heb. xii. 9 οὐ πολὺ μᾶλλον ὑποταγησόμεθα τῷ πατρὶ τ. πνευμάτων καὶ ζήσομεν; 
Jas. v. 18; Rev. xi. 3, that which was the object or aim of the first act, 
and might have been so represented (iva ...), is by means of the consecu- 
tive καί raised to independence as a result, since the writer wished to 
impart to it the greatest possible emphasis. A Greek author to produce 
such effect would probably have laid out the sentence from the outset as 
follows: οὐ πολὺ μᾶλλον ὑποταγέντες τῷ πατρὶ ... ζήσομεν ; See, further, 
Rom. xi. 35; Mark i. 27; Matt. v.15; cf. Ewald 653 (Sept. Ruth i. 11; 
Jonah i. 11). From later Greek may be quoted Malal. 2. p. 39 ἐκέλευσε 


καὶ ἐκαύθη ἡ μυσερὰ κεφαλὴ τῆς Γοργόνος. 


a δ"... 
Fie 


EE π“ὡν 





§ 53, CONJUNCTIONS. 451 


As to the other uses of καί, inasmuch as they are referrible to the signi- 
fications and and also, we have only to note: 

a. Kai before interrogatives, Mark x. 26 καὶ ris δύναται σωθῆναι; Luke 
x. 29; Jno. ix. 836; 1 Pet. iii. 13; 2 Cor. ii. 2 (familiar enough from the 
Greek authors, Plat. Theaet. 188 d.; Xen. Cyr. 5, 4, 13; 6, 3,22; Lucian. 
Herm. 84; Diog. L. 6, 93; D.S. exc. Vat. p. 30; the Latin et, too, is so 
used), comes under the signification and. We also say, Und was that er ? 
And what did he do?-—in an abrupt, hurried question, barring further 
discussion. On the other hand, καί never occurs in the N. T. before the 
Imperative to imply urgency (Hoogeveen, doctr. partic. 1. 538 sqq.; Har- 
tung I. 148). All the instances formerly alleged in support of this usage 
are of a different nature. In Matt. xxiii. 32 the καί is consecutive: ye 
profess to be sons ete., fill ye up then ete. In Luke xii. 29 καί denotes 
also or and (consequently). In Mark xi. 29 καί is and; in 1 Cor. xi. 6 
also. The strengthening καί after interrogatives, as in Rom. viii. 24 ὃ yap 40} 
βλέπει τις, τί καὶ ἐλπίζει; why doth he yet hope for? is reducible to the 1} οὐ, 
sense of also. 

b. Καί never occurs strictly as adversative. In the first place, passages 
in which καὶ οὐ, καὶ μή (Fr. Mr. p. 31), καὶ οὐδείς, etc. occurs — Matt. xi. 17; 388 
xii. 39; xxvi. 60; Mark i. 22; vii. 24; ix. 18; Jno. iii, 11, 32; vii. 30 6th ed.’ 
(on the contrary, vs. 44); x. 25; xiv. 30; Acts xii. 19; Col. ii. 8, ete. — 
must be set aside, as in these the contrast lies in the negation, and is neither 
strengthened by δέ nor weakened by a simple καί (Schaef. Dem. I. 645). 
Even in such sentences as Mark xii. 12 ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν κρατῆσαι K. ἐφοβήθησαν 
τὸν ὄχλον, 1 Thess. ii. 18 ἠθελήσαμεν ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ... καὶ ἐνέκοψεν ἡμᾶς 
ὃ σατανᾶς, Jno. vii. 28 ; 1 Jno. v. 19, the writer probably viewed the two 
particulars as co-existing side by side, though we are more inclined to 
emphasize the opposition. And in Acts x. 28; Matt. xx. 10 (the first 
supposed that they would receive more ; and they also received every man 
a denarion) we also employ and to give prominence to an unexpected 
result, see above. No one now will think it strange that in 1 Cor. xii. 4, 

5, 6 δέ and καί are used alternately. Lastly, in 1 Cor. xvi. 9 two circum- 
stances (one favorable and one unfavorable) detaining Paul in Ephesus 
are united; καί therefore is the simple copula. 

c. The epexegetical, more closely defining, καί namely (Hm. Philoct. 458 
1408; Bremi, Demosth. p. 179; ef. Ve. Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian. p. 9; 
Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 33 sq.; Weber, Demosth. p. 438) is primarily only 
and (and indeed), Jno. i. 16 out of his fulness have we all received, namely 
(that is) grace for grace, 1 Cor. iii. 5; xv. 88; Eph. vi. 18; Gal. vi. 16; 
Heb. xi. 17; Acts xxiii. 6. But this force has been attributed to καί in 
too many passages: in Matt. xiii. 41; xvii. 2; xxi. 5 καί is simply and. 


1So early a scholar as Hoogeveen perceived that but (however) is not the proper 
meaning of καί : sciant non ex se sed ex oppositorum membror. natura hanc (notionem) 
nactam esse «ai particulam (doctr. particul. I. 533). 


438 : § 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 


In Mark xi. 28 the true reading [sustained also by Cod. Sin.] is probably 7. 
In Matt. iii. 5 to render καὶ ἣ περίχωρος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου by namely the country 
about the Jordan, would be to join an incongruous adjunct to ἡ ‘Tovdaia, as 
the two geographical notions- do not exactly coincide nor is the former 
comprehended in the latter. The phraseology resembles, All Hesse and 
the Rhine-region ; all Baden and Breisgau, οἵ. Krii. 318. In the expres- 
sion θεὸς καὶ πατήρ the meaning of καί is simply and (at the same time), 
not namely, that is. 
ἃ. It may be doubted whether καί ever signifies especially (Bornem. 
Luc. 78; Fr. Mr. p. 11) when to a general term one that is special and 
strictly speaking already included in the former is added: in Mark i. ὃ 
ἐξεπορεύετο πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα καὶ ot Ἱεροσολυμῖται πάντες, xvi. 7 the 
specification is made prominent by its very position, but καί simply signifies 
and. Cf, Heb.vi.10. On the other hand, when a special term precedes, 
καί is sometimes put immediately before the general expression which 
includes the former, as in Matt. xxvi. 59 of ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι 
408 kai τὸ συνέδριον ὅλον and (in one word, to sum up) the whole sanhe- 
ithe. drim, see Fr. Mt. 786; Mr. 652; cf. Ve. Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian. p. 67 , 
Stallb, Plat. Gorg. p. 83 and rep. II. 212. Καί stands at the close of an 
entire exposition (before the final result) in Heb. iii. 19 (and according 
to some Codd. in 1 Cor. ν. 13). 
e. When καί signifies also (which is not the case e.g. in Eph. v. 2),’ it 
389 may be sometimes translated by precisely, just, very (eben, ja) (Hm. Vig. 
Gih el. 837 ; Poppo, Thuc. III. II. 419): Heb. vii. 26 τοιοῦτος γὰρ ἡμῖν καὶ 
ἔπρεπεν ἀρχιερεύς, ὅσιος etc. for such a high priest just became us, vi. 7; 
1 Pet. ii. 8 (Jno. viii. 25), Col. iii. 15; 2 Cor. iii.6; 2 Τίπι. 1,12. Else- 
where it might be rendered by wicissim 1 Cor. i. 8; Phil.ii. 9; but also 
is quite sufficient. 
f. When καί occurs in the consequent clause after a particle of time 
(ὅτε, ὡς), as in Luke ii. 21 ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ τοῦ περιτεμεῖν adrov, 
καὶ ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦς, or vii. 12 ὡς ἤγγισε τῇ πύλῃ τῆς πόλεως, 
καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐξεκομίζετο τεθνηκώς, Acts i. 10; χ. 17, the proper construction 
459 would be: ἐπλήσθ. δὲ ἡμέραι... καὶ ἐκλήθη, ἤγγισε τῇ πύλῃ ... καὶ ἐξεκομ. 
On the other hand, in Jno. i. 19 we must not (as even BCrus. does) join 
ὅτε ἀπέστειλαν ... καὶ ὡμολόγησε, but ὅτε ἀπέστειλαν etc. is to be connected 
with αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία etc., see Liicke in loc. On καί commencing a 
parenthesis, e.g. Rom. i. 13 (Fr. in loc.), see ὃ 62,1. On καὶ γάρ see no. 8 
Ρ. 448; and on καὶ δέ, no. 7 p. 443. In Luke xix. 42 and Acts ii. 18 we 
find καί ye et quidem, and that without a word intervening, a usage that 
does not occur in the earlier written language. As to later authors, see 
Klotz, Devar. IT. 318. 


1 As to καί also after relatives (Heb. i. 2; 1 Cor. xi. 23, ete.), see Klotz, Devar. I. 
636 ; but, in general, Krii. 319. The exact meaning of the also, even, must always be 
gathered from the context. Kal is repeated several times in succession by way of 
climax in 1 Cor. xv. 1 f. 


$53. CONJUNCTIONS. 439 


4, Connection in the form of correlation takes place, when two 
words or clauses are joined as corresponding to each other,’ by 
means of καί... καί (τε... τε Acts xxvi. 16) or te... καί. The 
first formula (καί... «aé) is used when the writer from the very 
first conceives both members as co-ordinate, e¢ ... et (both... and, 
as well ... as); the latter, when he appends to the first member a 
second (et... que, not only... but also) Klotz, Devar. 11. 740; 
Matt. x. 28 ὁ δυνάμενος καὶ ψυχὴν x. σῶμα ἀπολέσαι, 1 Cor, x. 32 
ἀπρόςκοποι καὶ ᾿Ιουδαίοις κ. “Ελλησιν καὶ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, Phil. iii. 10 ; 

iv. 8; Acts xxi. 12 παρεκαλοῦμεν ἡμεῖς τε καὶ οἱ ἐντόπιοι, Luke ii. 16 
ἀνεῦρον τήν τε Μαριὰμ καὶ τ. ᾿Ιωσὴφ καὶ τὸ βρέφος etc., Krii. 327. 

In the former case, the members are combined as into one whole 

(or compact group); in the latter, the second member is to be 
viewed as something added to the first, while the respective im- 
portance of each is not thereby pronounced upon (Rost 134, 5c.) ; 

cf. Acts iv. 27; v.24; Rom.i.14; Heb. xi. 82 etc. In the course 

of lengthened enumerations, groups (pairs) are thus formed by 409 
te... καί (... καί), as in Heb.“xi. 32 Βαράκ τε καὶ Σαμψὼν x. Th οἱ 
᾿Ιεφθάε, Δαυΐδ τε x. Σαμουὴλ x. τῶν προφητῶν, 1 Cor. i. 80; Heb. ᾿ 
vi. 2; Acts ii. 9,10; Phil. i. 7. 


Kai ... καί connect not merely things similar but also things contrasted, 
as in Jno. vi. 36 καὶ ἑωράκατέ pe καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε the seeing and the not 
believing both occur, in xv. 24, probably also in xvii. 25. On the other 
hand, in 1 Cor. vii. 38 the co-ordination of the contraries is disturbed in 
the second member by a comparison. On the correspondence between 
τε and δέ, according to which the latter particle denotes, along with con- 
nection, some opposition (lenis oppositio Klotz, Devar. II. 741) as in Acts 390 
xxii. 28 and the chief captain answered ... but Paul said, xix. 8, see Stallb. ‘th ed. 
Plat. Phileb. p. 36, and rep, II. 350; Hm. Eur. Med. p. 362 sq. ; Klotz 
lc. Te and καί are placed either immediately together between the two 460 
words thus formed into a group, as in Luke xxi. 11 φόβητρά re καὶ σημεῖα, 
Acts ix. 18, or are separated by one or two of the connected words, as in 
Luke xxiii. 12 6 τε Πιλᾶτ. καὶ ὁ Ἡρώδης, Jno. ii. 15; Acts ii. 43 πολλά τε 
τέρατα Kai σημεῖα, χ. 39 ἔν τε τῇ χώρᾳ τ. ᾿Ιουδαίων καὶ Ἱερουσαλήμ, Rom. 
i. 20; Acts xxvili. 23 etc., in which case the article, preposition, or adjec- 
tive serves also for the second member. Otherwise in Phil. i. 7 ἔν re τοῖς 
δεσμοῖς μου καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ ete. (In Acts xix. 27; xxi. 28 we find τε 
καί in one and the same clause, gue etiam, a combination rare in Greek 
authors, though not to be rejected.) 


1 Such passages as Mark ii. 26 καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν, Jno. v. 27, where 
kal... καί are not parallel to each other but the second signifies also, do not come 
under this head, cf. Soph. Philoct. 274. 


440 § 58, CONJUNCTIONS. 


5. Correlation is brought out with greatest precision in the form 
of comparison: ὡς (ὥςπερ, καθώς) ... οὕτως; frequently καί is sub- 
joined to the latter to increase its mini as in Jas. ii. 26 ὥςπερ 
τὸ σ Oa χωρὶς π᾿ νεύματος νεκρόν ἐσ TL, οὕτως καὶ ἡ tio τις χωρὶς τῶν 
ἔργων νεκρά ἐστιν, πο. ν. 21 ; Rom. v.18,21; 1 Cor. xv. 22; 2 Cor. 
i. 7; Eph. v. 24; Heb. v. 3; 2 Pet. ii. 12. Sometimes, in fact, 
καί in the second member actually takes the place of the compara- 
ative particle, as in Matt. vi. 10 γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου ὡς ἐν 
οὐρανῷ Kai ἐπὶ γῆς, Jno. vi. 57; x. 15; xiii. 833; xvii. 18; Acts 
vii. 51; see Bornem. Luke 71. 


The popular style likes to introduce καί elsewhere into comparisons, 
though also is already implied in the comparative particle; as, 1 Cor. vii. 7 
θέλω πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἶναι ὡς Kal ἐμαυτόν, Luke xi. 1; Acts vii. 51; xv. 8; 
xxvi. 29. Accordingly καί is repeated in both members in Rom. i. 13 
ἵνα τινὰ καρπὸν σχῶ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν καθὼς καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν, Matt. 
xviii. 33; Col. iii. 13 ; Rom. xi. 30 (var.), Stallb. Plat. pi I. 372; Klotz, 
Devar. 11. 635; Fr. Rom. I. 39 ; 11. 538 sq. 


6. Disjyunction comes next under consideration. Simple dis- 
junction is effected by 4 (which is often repeated, especially in 
impassioned discourse, Rom. viii. 35) and by ἢ καί or even (Matt. 
vii. 10; Luke xviii. 11; Rom. ii. 15; xiv. 10; 1 Cor. xvi. 6; ef. 
Fr. Rom. I. 122).1 Correlative disjunction, on the other hand, is 
expressed by 7... %, εἴτε ... εἴτε, sive ... sive, whether single 

410 words or entire clauses are contrasted, Matt. vi. 24; 1 Cor. xiv. 6 
Τὰ ed. (ἤτοι... ἤ Rom. vi. 16), Rom. xii. 6; 1 Cor. xii. 13; 1 Pet. 
iv. 15, ete. 


In the N. T. 7 is never put for καί, nor καί for 7, Marle, floril. 124, 195; 

461 cf. Schaef. Demosth. IV. 33.2. There are cases, however, in which both 
391 particles, each agreeably to its import, may be used with equal correctness 
ith ed, (Poppo, Thue. IIT. II. 146), e.g. 1 Cor. xiii. 1 and 2 Cor. xiii. 1 (cf. Matt. 
xviii. 16), also Heraclid. as quoted by Marle.2 When dissimilia are joined 
together by καί (Col. iii. 11), they are merely placed in connection as 
individual objects, and not exhibited expressly as different or opposite. 


1 According to the nature of the thoughts, the second clause, annexed by means of 
ἢ καί, is either to be considered as supplementary (Bengel on Rom. ii. 15) and is of less 
importance than the first, or καί involves an enhancement as in 1 Cor. (Klotz, Devar. 
II. 592). 

2 As to aut for et, see Hand, Tursell. I. 540. On the other hand, disjunction by ἤ 
may in a manner include union by καί. When we say: Whoever murders father or 
mother is guilty of the most heinous crime, we mean of course at the same time that 
whoever murders both his parents is not less guilty. The minus includes the majus. 

8 On kal... καί vel... vel, see Schoem. 1586. p. 807. 


§ 53, CONJUNCTIONS. 441 


In Matt. vii. 10 by καὶ ἐάν a second éase is introduced to which the speaker 
proceeds (further) ; but the better reading [supported too by Cod. Sin.] 
is probably ἢ καί In Luke xii. 2 we must supply καὶ οὐδὲν κρυπτόν. In 
Matt. xii. 27 Schott has correctly rendered καί by porro. In a sentence 
constructed like Matt. xii. 37 or would be quite inappropriate; no less so 
in Rom. xiv. 7. It has been urged by Protestants, on controversial 
grounds, that 7 is used for καί in 1 Cor. xi. 27 ὃς ἂν ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον 
ἢ πίνῃ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦ κυρίου. But, not to mention that in this passage 
several good Codd. give καί (as in vss. 26, 28, 29), ἤ may be explained 
from the mode then current of partaking of the Lord’s Supper, without 
giving countenance to the Catholic dogma of the communion in one kind, 
see Bengel and Baumgart. in loc.’ Should any one insist, however, that 
# proves areal distinction in the administration of the sacrament, even 
more would follow (looking at the matter philologically) than the Catholic 
interpreters could consent to take, viz. that the ewp alone might be suffi- 
cient in the communion. In Acts i. 7 (x. 14); xi. 8; xvii. 29; xxiv. 12; 
Rom. iv. 13; ix.11; Eph. v.3 7 is employed in negative clauses (Thue. 1,122; 
Aelian. anim. 16, 39; Sext. Empir. hypot. 1,69; Fr. Rom. III. 191 sq. ; 
Jacobs, Philostr. imag. p. 374 and Aelian. anim. p. 457), where in Latin 
also aut is used for et (Cic. Tuse. 5, 17; Catil. 1, 6,15; Tac. Annal. 3, 
54 etc.; Hand, Turs. I. 534), and in οὐχ ὑμῶν ἐστιν γνῶναι χρόνους ἢ καιρούς 
the negation applies equally to γνῶναι χρόνους and γνῶναι καιρούς (the atten- 
tion may be directed to the one or the other), so that the sense is exactly 
equivalent to yv. χρόν. καὶ καιρούς. When, lastly, καί and 7 occur in par- 
allel passages (Matt. xxi. 23; Luke xx. 2), the relation was differently 411 
conceived by the different writers. It would be a manifest abuse of Τὰ ed. 
parallelism to attempt to prove from this that the two particles are 
synonymous. Besides, these two particles have been not unfrequently 
interchanged by transcribers (Jno. viii. 14; Acts x.14; 1 Cor. xiii. 1 ete.; 462 
Maetzner, Antiph. p. 97). Cf. also Fr. Mr. 275 sq.; Jacob, Lucian. Alex. 
p- 11; whereas Tholuck, Bergpred. 5. 132 f., reaches no very clear result. 


T. Antithesis is expressed sometimes by the simple adversatives 
(δέ, dAAd), sometimes by a concessive construction (μέντοι, ὅμως, 
ἀλλά ye). A mutual relation of contrast, and consequently a 
combination of antithetical clauses, was originally indicated by 
μὲν ... δέ (1 Pet. iii. 18; iv.6); but this relation was ultimately weak- 
ened into mere correspondence (Rom. viii. 17; 1 Cor. i. 23), and 392 
became logically even inferior to parallelism by means of καί... me. 
καί (Hartung II. 403 ff.). - 


The particles ἀλλά and δέ differ in general like sed and autem (vero), see 


1 Even according to our mode of communing it is conceivable that one may receive 
the bread devoutly, but the cup with sensuous (perhaps sinful) distraction. Accord- 
ingly we, too, could say, Whoever receiveth bread or cup unworthily. 

56 


442 § 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 


Hand, Tursellin. I. 559, cf. 425: The former (the Neut. Plur. of ἄλλος 
with a different accent, Klotz, Devar. II. 1 sq.), which may often be trans- 
lated by yet, nevertheless, imo, expresses proper and strict opposition 
(cancelling a previous statement or indicating that it is to be disregarded) ; 
the latter (weakened from δή Klotz, ]. c. p. 355) connects while it con- 
trasts, i.e. adds another particular different from what precedes (Schneider, 
Vorles. 1. 220). When a negation precedes, we find οὐκ... ἀλλά not... 
but, and also οὐ (μή) ... δέ not... but (but rather), e.g. Acts xii. 9,14; 
Heb. iv. 13; vi.12; Jas. v.12; Rom. iii. 4, οὔπω ... δέ Heb. ii. 8 (Thue. 4, 
86; Xen. C. 4, 3,13; cf. Hartung, Partik. 1. 171; Klotz, Devar. II. 360). 
On ἀλλά and δέ we remark specially that, 

a) ἀλλά is used when a train of thought is broken off or interrupted, 
whether by an objection (Rom. x. 19; 1 Cor. xv. 35; Jno. vii. 27; Klotz, 
Devar. II. 11; cf: Xen. Mem. 1, 2, 9; 4,2,16; Cyr. 1, 6,9), or by a cor- 
rection (Mark xiv. 86; 2 Cor. xi. 1), or by a question (Heb. iii. 16; cf. 
Xen. C. 1, 8, 11; Klotz 11. 18), or by an encouragement, command, 
request (Acts x. 20; xxvi. 16; Matt. ix. 18; Mark ix. 22; Luke vii. 7; 
Jno. xii. 27; cf. Xen. C. 1,.5,13; 2, 2,4; 5, 5, 24; Arrian. Al. 5, 26, 3; 
see Palairet p. 298; Krebs p. 208; Klotz, Devar. II. 5); for in all these 
instances something different is advanced subversive of what precedes. 
Cf. also Jno. viii. 26 and Liicke in loc. In a consequent clause (after 
conditional particles) ἀλλά, like the Latin at, gives it an adversative em- 
phasis, and so strengthens it: 1 Cor. iv. 15 ἐὰν μυρίους παιδαγωγοὺς ἔχητε 
ἐν Χριστῷ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πολλοὺς πατέρας (yet not, still), 2 Cor. iv. 16; xi. 6; 
xiii. 4; Col. ii. 5 (cf. Her. 4, 120; Xen. C. 8, 6, 18; Lucian. pisc. 24 ; 
Aelian. anim. 11, 31; see Kypke II. 197; Niebuhr ind. ad Agath. p. 409 ; 
Klotz, Devar, II. 93). {The ease is different in Rom. vi. 5 εἰ σύμφυτοι 

412 γεγόναμεν τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐσόμεθα 
Thel....surely we shall be also etc.,see Fr. in loc.). The use of ἀλλά, when 
463 after a negative question it absorbs the answer mo, as in Matt. xi. 8 ri 
ἐξήλθατε θεάσασθαι; κάλαμον ὑπὸ ἀνέμου σαλευόμενον ; ἀλλὰ τί ἐξήλθατε 
ἰδεῖν; and 1 Cor. vi. 6; x. 20; Jno. vii. 48 sq., requires no explanation 
(see Schweigh. Arrian. Epict. IT. I. 839; Raphel. ad 1 Cor. as above). 
In Phil. iii. 8 ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν signifies at sane guidem; ἀλλά opposing the Pres. 
ἡγοῦμαι as a correction to the Perf. ἥγημαι In Rom. v. 14, 15 ἀλλά occurs 
993 twice in succession, in different relations; in 1 Cor. vi. 11 it is repeated 
6th οἱ, several times, emphatically, in one and the same relation. 


1°AAN # after a direct or indirect negation, which occurs (occasionally in the Sept. 
e.g. Job vi. 5 and) three times in the N. T. (Luke xii, 51; 2 Cor. i. 18 and 1 Cor. ili. 5,— 
but in the last passage is probably spurious), must according to the careful investigation 
of Klotz, Devar. p. 31 sqq., who followed Kriiger (de formulae ἀλλ᾽ ἤ et affinium par- 
ticular. post negation. vel negat. sententias usurpatar. natura et usu. Brunsvic. 1834. 
4to.), be referred to ἄλλο and not to ἀλλά. (In Luke as above J am not come on earth to 
bring — aught but division.) It is no valid objection to this exposition, that in 2 Cor., 
as above, ἀλλά itself precedes, cf. Plat. Phaed. 81 b.; see Klotz p. 36, 


§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 443 


Ὁ) δέ is frequently employed when merely something new is subjoined, 
something other and different from what precedes, though not strictly 
something contrasted (Herm. Vig. 845) ; this occurs in 2 Cor. vi. 15 sq. ; 
1 Cor. iv. 7; xv. 85 even in a succession of questions (Hartung 1. 169; 
Klotz, Devar. II. 356). Hence, in the first three Gospels καί and δέ are 
sometimes found respectively in parallel passages ; in 2 Cor., however, as 
above, a clause commencing with 7 is inserted in a series of clauses con- 
taining δέ Like the German aber, δέ is used in particular where an 
explanation is annexed, — whether as an integral part of a sentence, as in 
1 Cor. ii. 6 σοφίαν λαλοῦμεν ἐν τοῖς τελείοις, σοφίαν δὲ οὐ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, 
11. 1ὅ ; Rom. iii. 22; ix.30; Phil. ii. 8, or as a complete sentence in itself, 
as in Jno. vi. 10; ix. 14; xi. 5; xxi. 1; Gal. ii. 2; Eph. v. 32; Jas. i. 6 
~—and where, after a parenthesis or digression, the train of thought is 
resumed (Hm. Vig. 846 sq.; Klotz 11. 376; Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 141 sq.) ; 
2 Cor. x. 2; ii. 12; vy. 8; Eph. ii. 4; cf Plat. Phaed. p. 80d.; Xen. An. 
7, 2,18; Paus. 3, 14,1 (autem Cie. off. 1, 43; Liv. 6,1, 10). In an 
explanation which is at the same time a correction, such as 1 Cor. i. 16, 
the adversative force of the particle is still perceptible. Sometimes δέ 
introduces a climax, as in Heb. xii. 6, or indicates successive steps in the 
discourse, as in 2 Pet. i. 5-7. As to δέ in the apodosis [Acts xi. 17], see 
Weber, Demosth. p. 387, particularly after participles (supplying the place 
of the protasis) as in Col. i. 21 (Klotz II. 874), see Jacobs, Aelian. anim. 
I. 26 praef. Aé used several times in succession in didactic discourse must 
be interpreted according to the requirements of each particular case, as in 
1 Pet. iii. 14 sqq. (the third δέ, however, is dropped by Lchm.) see Wies- 
inger. In narration often several clauses are connected together simply 
by δέ, as in Acts viii. 1-3, 7-9. 

kai... δέ (in one and the same clause), as often in the best authors (Weber, 443 
Demosth. p. 220), is equivalent to et... vero, atque etiam, and also (Krii. ith αἱ, 
319 “καί means also ; δέ, and” ; Hartung I. 187 f. maintains the reverse), 464 
Matt. xvi. 18; Heb. ix. 21; Jno. vi. 51; xv. 27; 1 Jno.i.3; Acts xxii. 29; 
2 Pet. i. 5; Schaef. Long. p. 349 sq.; Poppo, Thue. III. 11. 154; Ellendt, 
Arrian. Al. 1.157. The opposite phrase δὲ καί (2 Pet. ii. 1) means but also. 

As to μέν (weakened from μήν"), there is nothing peculiar in N. T. 
usage, for μέν... δέ... δέ in Jude 8 (not in 2 Cor. viii. 17) requires no 
explanation. Where, however, μέν... ἀλλά correspond, as in Rom. xiv. 20 
etc. (cf. Iliad 1, 22 sqq.; Xen. C. 7, 1, 16), the second clause is made 
more strongly prominent, Klotz, Devar. II. 3. Further, when μέν... καί 
correspond, as in Acts xxvii. 21 f., there exists an unmistakable anacol- 
uthon, Hm. Vig. 841; Maetzner, Antiph. 257. As to μέν without δέ 
following, see ὃ 63, I. 2, 6. p.575. Finally, on the unauthorized insertion 
of μέν before δέ (Wahl, Clav. p. 307), see Fr. Rom. II. 423, cf. Rost 731. 


1 In Greek authors, also, δέ occurs frequently, as is well known, in narration. 
? This occurs in the N. Τὶ, only in the pure Greek combination 4 μήν Heb. vi. 14 
(and even there not without var.), used to introduce an oath (Hartung, II. 376, 388). 


444 ὃ 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 


Antithesis expressed by means of yet, however, is of very rare occurrence 
in the N.T. John uses μέντοι most frequently where others would have 
employed a simple dé. He once strengthens μέντοι by prefixing ὅμως 
(xii. 42). Elsewhere ὅμως is used but twice,— by Paul, 1 Cor. xiv. 7; 
Gal. iii. 15. We find καίτοιγε in Acts xiv. 17, referring to something that 

394 precedes, and meaning although, quamquam [cf. also Jno. iv. 2]. In the 

δι} el. N. T. there is nothing peculiar in the use of ἀλλά ye (Luke xxiv. 21; 
1 Cor. ix. 2 ete.) but yet, yet certainly, Klotz, Devar. II. 24 sq., except 
that both particles are placed in immediate succession, which could scarcely 
occur in classic authors, Klotz, as above, p. 15. The correlation though 
... yet, is expressed by εἰ καί... ἀλλά in Col. ii. 5 εἰ γὰρ καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ 
ἄπειμι, ἀλλὰ τῷ πνεύματι σὺν ὑμῖν εἰμί, and by εἰ καί... γε in Luke 
xviii.4. In general, εἰ καί means ἐγ also, si etiam, quamquam (designat- 
ing something as matter of fact); but καὶ εἰ even if, etiam si (putting 
something merely as a case supposed), cf. Hm. Vig. 832; Klotz, Devar. 
II. 519 sq. 


8. The temporal relation of clauses is expressed by ὡς, ὅτε (ὅταν), 
ἐπεί, or by ἕως, μέχρι, πρίν (ὃ 41 b. 8, p. 296 sq. and § 60). An 
inference is indicated by οὖν, τοίνυν, ὥςτε (μενοῦν), and more . 

~ sharply by dpa, διό (ὅθεν), τουγαροῦν, (οὐκοῦν only in Jno. xviii. 87). 
The causal relation is denoted by ὅτι, γάρ (διότι, ἐπεί). while ὡς, 
καθώς, καθότι (subjoining a clause) are rather explanatory than 
argumentative. Lastly, a condition is expressed by εἰ (εἴγε, εἴπερ), 
ἐάν, § 41 b. 2, p. 291 sq. 


a. The most usual and most strictly syllogistic of the illative particles 

is οὖν, [ Val. Chr. Fr. Rost iib. Ableitung, Bedeutung ἃ. Gebrauch der 
414 Partikel οὖν. Gott. 1859. 4to.]. Its reference can be discovered with more 
th el. or less facility from the context in each instance, e.g. Matt. iii. 8, 10; 
465 xii. 12; 1 Cor. xiv. 11 (see Mey. in loc.) ; Matt. xxvii. 22; Acts i. 21; 
Rom. vi. 4. But like the German nun (Eng. then, now), it is very often 
used to indicate the mere continuance of a narration (when what follows 
depends upon what precedes chronologically merely), Jno. iv. 5, 28; xiii. 6; 

cf. Schaef. Plutarch. [V. 425. Moreover, like the German also (therefore, 
thus) or nun (now), it is used especially after a digression to resume the 
train of thought (Heind. Plat. Lys. p. 52; Bornem. Xen. Mem. p. 285; 
Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 42; Dissen, Demosth. cor. p. 413; Poppo, Thuc. 

III. IV. 738) 1 Cor. viii. 4; xi. 20, or when a writer proceeds to explain, 
(even by examples) as in Rom. xii. 20. “Apa accordingly, quae cum ita 

sint, rebus ita comparatis, serves, no doubt, primarily to introduce leviorem 
conclusionem, as it is used principally in conversation and the language of 
ordinary intercourse (Klotz, Devar. II. 167, 717); but in later Greek 
the-use of this particle was extended, and individual writers, at least, 
employ it to indicate even a strictly logical inference. It inclines towards 


§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 445 


its primary import when used in the apodosis (after a conditional clause) 
(Matt., xii. 28; 2 Cor. v.15; Gal. iii. 29; Heb. xii. 8; cf. Xen. Cyr. 1, 3, 
2; 8, 4,7); so also when it expresses an inference from another man’s 
averment (cf. 1 Cor. v. 10; xv. 15, where it may be rendered by indeed, 
that is, Klotz 169; ef. Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 92 ; Hoogeveen, doctrina particul. 
I. 109 sq.) or proceeding (Luke xi. 48). In the N.T. Paul employs this 
particle most frequently, especially when analyzing the import of a quota- 
tion from the O. T., Rom. x. 17; Gal. iii. 7 (cf. Heb. iv. 9), or summing 
up a discussion, Rom. viii. 1 (Gal. iv.31 var.) ; though in these cases he 
as often uses οὖν. In questions dpa refers either to an assertion or fact 
previously mentioned, Matt. xix. 25; Luke viii. 25; xxii. 23; Acts xii. 18; 
2 Cor. i. 17, or to some thought existing in the mind of the questioner 
Matt. xviii. 1, and which suggests itself more or less distinctly to the 395 
reader. It then signifies, such being the case, under these circumstances, 6th eb 
rebus ita comparatis, and sometimes, of course, obviously, Klotz II. 176. 
Likewise εἰ dpa si forte Mark xi. 13; Acts viii. 22 and ἐπεὶ ἄρα 1 Cor. 
vii. 14 may be referred to this signification (Klotz, as above, 178). “Apa 
οὖν combined, and that as the first words of a sentence (see, on the other 
hand, Hm. Vig. 823), so then, hine ergo (where ἄρα is illative and οὖν 
continuative, cf. Hoogeveen, doctr. part. I. 129 sq.; 11. 1002), is a favorite 
expression of Paul’s, Rom. v. 18; vii. 3; viii. 12; ix.16, ete. I know of 
no instances of this combination in Greek authors: in Plat. rep. 5, p. 
462 a. the recent texts read (in the question) ἄρ᾽ οὖν, cf. Schneider in loc.; 
Klotz, Devar. II. 180. Paul and Luke employ διό (é 6) most fre- 
quently. Τοίνυν assuredly now, therefore, and τοιγαροῦν (strengthened τοιγάρ, 
Klotz 11. 738) wherefore then, are rare. As to ὥςτε and its construction, 
see p. 301. 

b. Ὅτι refers in general to some matter of fact under consideration, and 

hence signifies both that and because, quod; in the latter case, it is some- 466 
times rendered still more forcible by a preceding διὰ τοῦτο (propterea quod). 415 
Occasionally it is used elliptically, Luke xi. 18 ἐγ Satan also is divided ith ed 
against himself, how will his kingdom stand? (I ask this) because ye say, 
by Beelzebub ete. ; i. 25 ; Mark iii. 30 (Acta Apocr. p.57); Bornem. Luc. 
p- 6. Likewise in Jno. ii. 18, where it amounts to the same thing to trans- 
late it in consideration of the fact that (seeing that), Fr. Mt. p. 248 sq. 
But in Matt. v. 45 ὅτι simply means because. (Sometimes it seems doubtful 
whether or: means because or that ; the decision then rests on hermeneutical 
grounds.) The compound διότι (chiefly found in later Greek) for this 
reason that, or simply because, Fr. Rom. I. 57 sq., is used most frequently 
by Paul and Luke. 

[dp is in cultivated prose the most common causal particle, and corres- 
ponds to our for. Originally (it is contracted from ye and dpa, dp), it 
expresses in general a corroboration or assent (ye) in reference to what 
precedes (dpa!) (see Hartung I. 457 ff.; Schneider, Vorles. I. 219; Klotz, 


446 § 58, CONJUNCTIONS. 


Devar. II. 282 6): sane igitur, certe igitur, sane pro rebus comparatis 
(enim. in its primary import), and from this fundamental signification arose 
its causal force. In consequence of its original signification yap serves — 
passing over what is familiar — first of all and very naturally 
a) to introduce explanatory clauses, whether they appear in the form 
of supplementary statements (sometimes of digressions) Mark v. 42; xvi. 4; 
1 Cor. xvi. 5; Rom. vii. 1, or blend with the current of the discourse 2 Cor. 
iv. 11; Rom. vii. 2; Jas. i.24; 1.2; Heb. ix.2; Gal. ii.12. Τάρ is then 
to be rendered by that is, Klotz 284sq. Explanatory in a wide sense 
every confirmation or proof (even Heb. ii. 8) may be said to be which we 
introduce by for (though the German ja comes nearer than denn to the 
primary import of γάρ Hartung I. 463 ff.) : Matt. ii. 20 go into the land of 
Israel; for they are dead etc. This is especially the case in those passages — 
where it was supposed that something is to be supplied before γάρ for, 
396 Matt. ii. 2: where is the born king of the Jews? (he that is born king of 
tthed. the Jews?) for we have seen his star, xxii. 28; 1 Cor.iv.9; 2 Cor. xi. 5; 
Phil. iii. 20; 1 Pet. iv.15; 2 Pet. iii. 5. Hence what Klotz says p. 240 
is in point: Nihil supplendum est ante enuntiationem eam, quae infertur 
per partic. γάρ, sed ut omnis constet oratio, postea demum aliquid tacita 
cogitatione adsumendum erit, sed nihil tamen alieni, verum id ipsum, quod 
ea sententia quae praecedit γάρ particulae enuntiavit (for we have seen his 
star, — he must have been born, therefore, somewhere). Likewise, 
467 b) in replies and rejoinders (Klotz p. 240 sq.) the original import of 
416 γάρ is prominent; for in Jno. ix. 80 ἐν yap τούτῳ θαυμαστόν ἐστιν ete. the 
ith ed. reply refers primarily to the statement of the Pharisees in vs. 29 (dpa), 
and then subjoins an affirmation (ye): sane quidem mirum est etc. in 
this at least, it is assuredly wonderful. So also in 1 Cor. viii. 11; ix. 9,10; 
xiv. 9; 1 Thess. ii. 20, in all which eases nothing is to be supplied before 
γάρ Equally unnecessary is it to supply anything in exhortations (Klotz 
242) Jas. i. 7: for let not that man think etc.; here dpa refers back to 6 
yap διακρινόμενος etc.; and ye combines a corroboration with the inference. 
On the other hand, 


1 Si sequimur originem ipsam ac naturam particulae ydp, hoc dicitur conjunctis istis 
particulis: Sane pro rebus comparatis, ac primum adfirmatur res pro potestate particulae 
γε, deinde refertur eadem ad antecedentia per vim particulae ἄρα. 

2 This practice of supplying something has been carried to an extent quite pedantic, 
e.g. Matt. iv. 18; xxvi. 11; Mark iv. 25; v.42; 2 Cor. ix. 7. If it were maintained 
that between the propositions, “‘ He makes clothes, for he is a tailor,” we must supply, 
“One need not wonder at this,” every body would regard it as ridiculous. As to the 
Latin nam, see Hand, Tursell. IV. 12'sqq. 

3 In Acts xvi. 37 Παῦλος ἔφη" δείραντες ἡμᾶς δημοσίᾳ ἀκατακρίτους, ἀνθρώπους Ῥωμαίους 
ὑπάρχοντας ἔβαλον εἰς φυλακήν, καὶ νῦν χάθρᾳ ἡμᾶς ἐκβάλλουσιν; Paul immediately 
answers the question himself, οὐ γάρ, ἀλλὰ ... αὐτοὶ ἡμᾶς ἐξαγαγέτωσαν : non sane 
pro rebuscomparatis. The ἄρα contained in γάρ glances back at the circumstances pre- 
viously described ; while the ye founds upon them a corroboration : continet (as Klotz 
says p. 242) cum adfirmatione conclusionem, quae ex rebus ita comparatis facienda sit. 


§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 441 


c) in questions γάρ seems to deviate farthest from its original import. 
And in fact the origin of this use may have been afterwards forgotten, 
and γάρ have been regarded as the sign of a question’ urgent because 
justified by the connection (Klotz 247). However, the essentially infer- 
ential force of γάρ (dpa!) is still perceptible in many passages: igitur 
rebus ita comparatis, adeo. In Matt. xxvii. 23 Pilate’s question τί yap 
κακὸν ἐποίησεν ; refers to the demand of the Jews σταυρωθήτω in vs. 22. 
From this Pilate infers the opinion which he in the question imputes to 
the Jews: quid igitur (since you demand his crucifixion) putatis eum mali 
fecisse ? So in Jno. vii. 41 (surely you do not think then that the Messiah 
comes out of Galilee ? num igitur putatis, Messiam etc.?) The reference 
of this yap to something preceding is in all cases plain ;— even in Acts 
xix. 35; viii. 31. It is usual in this case also to supply something before 
the question, even though only a nescio or miror, Hm. Vig. 829 and ad 
Aristoph. nub. 192; Wahl, Clav. 79 sq. See in opposition, Klotz 234, 
247. Lastly, Klotz 236, 238 appears to be right in contradicting the 397 
current assertion, that even in prose authors (such as Her. see Kiihner 6th ed 
If. 453) it is not unusual, in the lively movement of thought, to put γάρ 
with the causal clause before the clause it is intended to substantiate (see 
Matthiae, Eurip. Phoen. p. 371; Stallb. Plat. Phaed. p. 207; Rost, Gr. 

738 *) ; in reference to the N. T. (Fr. 2 diss. in 2 Cor. p. 18 sq.; Tholuck 468 
on Jno. iv. 44 and Heb. ii. 8) this observation was in fact unnecessary. 
Meyer has, beyond doubt, correctly explained Jno. iv. 44. In Heb. ii: 8 
the words ἐν yap τῷ ὑποτάξαι τὰ πάντα contain the proof of there being 
nothing which was not put in subjection to him according to God’s purpose, 417 
indirectly therefore of vs. 5 that the world to come also is put in subjection Th ed . 
to him; while νῦν δὲ οὔπω ete. shows that this subjection has at least 
begun to be carried into effect. The Scriptural promise must be distin- 
guished from its actual fulfilment, which, however, has already commenced. 
2 Cor. ix. 1 stands in obvious connection with viii. 24. 1 Cor. iv. 4 οὐδὲ 
ἐμαυτὸν ἀνακρίνω - οὐδὲν yap ἐμαυτῷ σύνοιδα, GAN οὐκ ἐν τούτῳ δεδικαίωμαι 
is to be translated: J am conscious, to be sure, to myself of nothing, yet etc. 

d) γάρ occurs several times in succession with change of reference: 
Rom. ii. 11-14; iv. 13-15; v. 6,7; viii. 5 f.; x. 2-5; xvi. 18 f.; Jas.i. 6, 

75 8. 10; iv. 14; 1 Cor. iii, 3-5; ix. 16f.; Heb. vii. 12-14 (Lycurg. 24, 
1; 82, 8) see Engelhardt, Plat. Apol. p. 225; Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian. 
183 sq. In such passages γάρ often gives the ground of a series of separate 
thoughts subordinate one to another (Jas. i. 6; 1 Cor. xi. 8; Rom. viii. ff), 


1 The energy which resides in such questions with γάρ proceeds from their being 
prompted by the very words of the other party, or by the circumstances ; a right being 
thus conferred to demand an answer, e.g. 1 Cor. xi. 22, 

? Hm. Eurip. Iphig. Taur. p. 70: saepe in ratione reddenda invertunt Graeci ordinem 
sententiarum, caussam praemittentes : quo genere loquendi saepissime usus est Hero- 
dotus. Cf. also Hoogeveen I. 252. 


448 § 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 


see Fr. Rom. IJ. 111. Sometimes, however, the same words are repeated 
with γάρ in order to introduce some addition to what has been said, Rom. 
xv. 27 (not 2 Cor. v. 4). 

Kai γάρ is equivalent either to etenim (merely connecting) or nam etiam 
(giving prominence) Klotz, Devar. II. 642 5ᾳ. This latter signification 
has frequently been overlooked by expositors, even those of the N.T. 
(Weber, Demosth. p. 271; Fr. Rom. II. p. 433). Thus in Jno. iy. 23; 
Acts xix. 40; Rom. xi. 1; xv. 3; xvi. 2; 1 Cor. v. 7; 2 Cor. ii. 10, ete. ; 
in several of these passages even Wahl renders καὶ γάρ by etenim.’ Te γάρ 
in Rom. vii. 7 means for also, or for indeed, Hm. Soph. Trach. p. 176; 
Schaef. Dem. 11. 579 and Plutarch. IV. 324; Klotz, Devar. II. 749 sqq.3 
but in Heb. ii. 11 (Rom. i. 26) τε and καί correspond, and in 2 Cor. x. 8 
there is probably an anacoluthon, Klotz l.c. 749. 

Ἐπεί passed from a particle of time into a causal particle, like our since 
and the Latin guando. Ἐπειδή answers entirely to guoniam (from quom— 
quum—jam). ᾿Επείπερ since indeed (Hm. Vig. 786) occurs only in Rom. 
iii. 80 (yet not without var.), see Fr. in loc. [[Ἐπειδήπερ forasmuch as, 
since now (Aristot. Phys. 8,5; Dion. Hal. 2, 72; Philo ad Caj. § 25 and 

(used by the best Greek authors, see Hartung, Partikell. 1. S. 342 sq.) 
occurs in the N. T. only in Luke i. 1.] 

Καθώς and.c -os, in appended clauses, denote explanation rather than strict 
confirmation, and resemble the Latin (quoniam) quippe, siquidem, and 
the antiquated (Germ.) sintemal. On ὡς (in 2 Tim. i.3; Gal. vi. 10; 
Matt. vi. 12 it means as) cf. Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 836; Stallb. Plat. sympos. 
Ρ. 185 ; Lehmann, Lucian. I. 457 ; III. 425 ete. 

398 As to ἐφ᾽ ᾧ on this account that, see p. 394. 
δὰ el ¢, Kihas the compound forms εἴγε if that is since, gquandoquidem (when no 
469 doubt exists) and εἴπερ if indeed (when no decision is implied), Hm. Vig. p. 
834; cf. Klotz. Devar. 11. 808, 528, which occur almost exclusively in Paul. 
The distinction pointed out is obvious in most passages; as to Eph. iii. 2, 
see Mey. 1 Pet. ii. 8, and probably also 2 Thess. i. 6, appears to be of a 
418 rhetorical nature. On these passages, as well as Rom. viii. 9; Col. i. 23, 
Τὰ οἱ. see Fr. Priilimin. 5. 67 f. Ei itself retains the signification ¢f, even 
where in point of meaning it stands for ἐπεί since (Acts iv. 9; Rom. 
xi. 21; 1 Jno.iv.11; 2 Pet. ii. 4, ete.) ; the sentence is in form conditional : 
if (as is actually the case), and the categoric force for the moment does 
not come into view. Sometimes there is a rhetorical reason for this usage 
(Dissen, Demosth. cor. p. 195; Bornem. Xen. conv. p. 101). So also in 
expressions in which it may be rendered by that, see ὃ 60,6. Ei denoting 
a wish, 7f only, O that, for which Greek authors usually employ εἴθε or εἰ 
yap (Klotz, Devar. II. 516), occurs, according to the punctuation adopted 
by recent editors, in Luke xii. 49 καὶ τί θέλω; εἰ ἤδη ἀνήφθη and what do 
I wish? (answer) if it were (only) already kindled ; see Mey. [in his 
earlier eds.] in loc. With regard to the Aorist, see Klotz l.c.: si de aliqua 


8. 53, CONJUNCTIONS. 449 


re sermo est, de qua, quum non facta sit olim, nune nobis gratum fore 
significamus, si facta esset illo tempore. Such a question, however, seems 
rather artificial in the mouth of Jesus. Of the objections which Mey. 
brings against the common exposition, How 1 wish that it were already 
kindled ! the second, so far as usage goes, is less forcible than the first. 
[But Mey. now (4th ed.) acknowledges the common interpretation to be 
correct. | 


9, Final clauses are expressed by means of the conjunctions ἵνα, 
ὅπως (as). Objective clauses,! which as they express the object 
of the principal clause in the form of a perception or judgment 
merely unfold its predicate, and consequently assume the place of 
the Objective case in a simple sentence (Thiersch, gr. Grammat. 8, 
605.), I see that this is good, I say that he is rich, are introduced 
by ὅτι or ὧς. Yet conjunctions are the less indispensable for both 
kinds of clauses as both may be conveniently expressed by means 
of the Infinitive, § 44. 


Ὅτι is the proper objective particle, like guod and that. It is used in 
this sense e.g. also after solemn asseverations, as in 2 Cor. xi. 10 ἔστιν 
ἀλήθεια Χριστοῦ ἐν ἐμοί, Gal. i. 20 ἰδοὺ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ, 2 Cor. i. 18 πιστὸς 
ὃ θεός, Rom. xiv. 11, for these include the idea J aver, cf. Fr. Rom. II. 
242sq. In this way, too, is ὅτε to be taken when it introduces direct 
discourse, Mdv. p. 222; cf. Weber, Demosth. p. 346. 

Ὡς (Adv. from the pronoun és Klotz, Devar. II. 757) likewise signifies, 
after verbs of knowing, saying etc. how, ut (Kiotz p. 765) Acts x. 28 470 
ἐπίστασθε, ὡς ἀθέμιτόν ἐστιν ἀνδρὶ ᾿Ιουδαίῳ ye know, how (that) it is unlawful 
for a Jew. Thus the two conjunctions ὅτι and és, when used in objective 399 
sentences, proceed from different conceptions of the object, but coincide Mth ed. 
in sense. 3 

Ὅπως, like ut (quo), besides being an adverb (how, πῶς Klotz, Devar. 

II. 681, cf. Luke xxiv. 20), has become a conjunction. “Iva was originally 419 
a relative adverb, where, whither (Klotz, as above, p. 616). From local th ed, 
direction it was transferred to direction of the will (design), and thus 
resembles the Latin guo. In the N. T. ὡς expressing design (Klotz p. 760) 
occurs only in the well-known phrase ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, Heb. vii. 9; οὗ, Mtth. 
1265, which, however, recent grammarians are inclined to explain other- 
wise, Klotz II. 765; Madv. 164. (How iva in the N.T. is used also 
instead of the simple Inf., see p. 334 sqq.) 


10. The regular use of all these conjunctions, framed as they 
were to express the several relations of clauses, would be quite 
annulled, had the N. T. writers actually employed one conjunction 


1 Weller, tiber Subjects ... und Objectssiitze etc. Meining. 1845. 4to. 
57 ° 


450 § 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 


for another — if with them δέ often were equivalent to γάρ, γάρ to 
οὖν, ἵνα to ὥςτε, etc..—as expositors, following indeed the scholiasts 
(Fischer ad Palaeph. p. 6) and earlier philologists, long assumed 
(Pott, Heinrichs, Flatt, Kiihnél, Schott, even D. Schulz), and as 
the Hermeneutics of the time (Keil, Hermen. 8. 67) taught. 

471 But such interchange is in every instance only apparent. It 
rests in part on the circumstance, that the relation of two senten- 
ces to each other may be conceived sometimes in several ways ?; 
and thus the particular logical connection in a given passage may 
depend on the conception of the individual (or nation, see below 
on ἵνα), one which is unfamiliar to the reader; and in part on ἃ 

400 conciseness of expression foreign to the genius of our language. 

6th el. Wherever the apostles use a δέ they have always thought somehow 
of abut; and it is the expositor’s duty to reproduce for himself in 

420 like manner the connection of thought, and not for convenience’ 

ith el. sake to imagine an interchange of conjunctions perhaps of opposite 
import. For how absurd to suppose that the apostles actually used 
for when they intended to say but, or but when they should have 
written for! Any child can distinguish such relations. And how 
stupid they must have been to think of employing instead of for 
its opposite therefore! None but expositors who had never accus- 
tomed themselves to view language as living speech, or who shrank 
from the labor of precise thought, could have indulged such an 

-1 Even the better expositors are not free from this arbitrariness: thus Beza in 1 Cor. 
viii. 7 takes ἀλλά for itague. See in opposition to such interpretation my Progr. Con- 
junctionum in N.T. accuratius explicandar. caussae et exempla. Erlang. 1826. 4to. 
It is really strange to see how the commentaries (till within a few decades) undertake 
again and again to dictate to the apostles, and force upon them almost always some 
other conjunction than that actually employed in the text. Were we to reckon up 
the passages, there would certainly remain e.g. in Paul’s epistles not more than six or 
eight in which the apostle has selected the right particle, and not required the subsequent 
aid of an expositor. This has made the interpretation of the N. T. very arbitrary. 
Are we not to believe that Paul and Luke knew more Greek than many of their 
domineering expositors ? No one in this matter can appeal to the Hebrew who has 
not a most irrational idea of that language. Such arbitrary substitutions of one thing 
for another are impossible in any human speech. Besides, the arbitrariness of the 
interpreters was the more manifest, because different expositors often attributed toa 
conjunction senses entirely different in the same passage : (in 2 Cor. viii. 7 e.g ἀλλά 
according to some is put for γάρ ; according to others, for οὖν etc. ; in Heb. v. 11 καί 
according to some is put for ἀλλά, but according to others means licet. In Heb. iii. 10 
Kithnol leaves it optional whether δέ is taken for καί or in the sense of nam). Thus 
purely private opinion has here the freest range. Moreover, the translators of the books 
of the N. T. (even the excellent Schulz in the Epistle to the Hebrews) deserve censure 


for rendering the conjunctions most capriciously. 
2 Cf., as to such a case, Klotz II. p. 5, and the remarks made below (after explaining 


οὖν), p. 455 sq. Υ 


§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 451 


imagination; and it is no honor to biblical exegesis that such 
principles so long found approval. In human thought connected 
ideas are always related ideas. Whenever, therefore, a conjunc- 
tion is used in a seuse apparently foreign to it, the very first en- 
deavor must be to show the process by which the writer’s mind 
passed from the primary to the unusual signification. But this 
was not thought of; had serious thought been given to it, the 
delusion of which we have bee1i speaking would have vanished in 
a moment. 

As the unlimited interchange of conjunctions is a pure fiction, 
so too is the notion that they are weakened ; according to which 
even the more forcible particles, as for, but, are represented as 
being quite superfluous or mere particles of transition (see e.g. 
no. 3 below). Recent exegetes, indeed, have abandoned this 472 
arbitrary but convenient rule of interpretation. We will there- 
fore single out only a few especially specious passages, in which 
the conjunctions employed were for a long time not acquiesced 
in, or where even the better expositors are not agreed about the 
connection of thought. 


1. ᾿Αλλά does not stand 

a) for οὖν: In 2 Cor. viii. 7 ἀλλά simply means but, at: from’ Titus, 
to whom he had given instructions, Paul turns to exhort his readers on 
their part to do what was desired ; for the clause with ἵνα is to be taken 
imperatively. Eph. v. 24 is not an inference from vs. 23; but. the state- 
ment in vs. 22, that wives should be subject to their husbands ὡς τῷ 
κυρίῳ, is proved in vss. 23, 24 first from the position of Christ and of the 
husband, both being κεφαλαί, but secondly —and this is the main argument 
— from the claim (to be obeyed) which, as for Christ so for the husband, 
flows from this position. And vs. 24, so far from being a mere repetition 
of what is stated in vs. 22, concludes the argument, and explains ὑποτάσσ. 
τοῖς ἀνδρ. ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ. The expressive apposition also, αὐτὸς σωτήρ etc., 
does not interrupt the train of thought ; whereas the exposition of Mey., 
who regards these words as an independent sentence, introduces a state- 
ment that obstructs the line of argument. As to Acts x. 20 (Elsner in 
loc.), see above, no. 7. p. 442. 

b) for εἰ μή: In Mark ix. 8 οὐκέτι οὐδένα εἶδον, ἀλλὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν μόνον 421 
means, they no longer saw any one (of those that they had previously ‘th ed, 
seen, vs. 4), but (they saw) Jesus alone. In Matt. xx. 23 (Raphel and 401 
Alberti in loc.) δοθήσεται, borrowed from δοῦναι, is to be repeated after 6th ed, 
ἀλλά, and the conjunction signifies but. ; 

6) for sane, profecto: neither in Jno. viii. 26 see no. 7 p.442, nor in xvi. 2, 
where it denotes imo or at as in Acts xix. 2; 1 Cor. vi. 6. Rom. vi. 5, 

where ἀλλά (καί) occurs in the apodosis, does not come under this head. 


452 8 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 


2. Aé never means 
a) therefore, then: In 1 Cor. xi. 28 it signifies but, in antithesis to vs. 27 
ἀναξίως ἐσθίειν, but let a man examine himself (in order to avoid bringing 
on himself such guilt). In 1 Cor. viii. 9 a practical restriction, in the form 
of an admonition, is annexed to the general prineiple laid down in vs. 8: 
but see to it that this liberty do not become etc. In Rom. viii. 8, if Paul 
had intended to present θεῷ ἀρέσαι οὐ δύνανται as an inference from what 
precedes he might have continued with therefore (as Riick. explains δῷ ; 
but he passes from ἔχθρα εἰς Oedv to the other aspect of the matter θεῷ 
ἀρέσαι ov Svivavtar,— a transition which would have surprised no one had 
473 there been no parenthetical clause. In Jas. ii. 15 δέ, if genuine, means 
jam vero, atqui. , 
b) for (Poppo, Thue. II. 291; Ind. ad Xen. Cyr., and Bornem. ind. ad 
Xen. Anab.;:see, on the other hand, Hm. Vig. 846; Schaef. Demosth. 
II. 128 sq.; V. 541; Lehm. Lucian. I. 197; Wex, Antig. I. 300 sq.) :} 
In Mark xvi. 8 εἶχε δέ is merely explanatory ; the cause of this τρόμος καὶ 
ἔκστασις is stated in the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ ; some good Codd., however, 
which Lchm. follows, [Sin. also] have γάρ in the first passage. In Jno. 
vi. 10 the words ἦν δὲ χόρτος etc. are also a supplementary explanation ; 
see above. In 1 Thess. ii. 16 ἔφθασε δέ forms a contrast to the intention 
of the Jews ἀναπληρ. αὐτῶν τ. ἅμαρτ. : but (as, in fact, they would have it 
so) the punishment for this is come on them. In Matt. xxiii. 5 πλατύνουσι 
δέ etc. are special illustrations of πάντὰ τὰ ἔργα αὑτῶν ποιοῦσι πρὸς τὸ 
θεαθῆναι ; the γάρ, adopted by the more recent editors, probably owes its 
origin to scribes who were troubled by dé In 1 Tim. iii. 5 εἰ δέ τις ete. 
means, but if one etc.; the sentence, as will be seen by referring to vs. 6, 
is a parenthetical antithesis to tod ἰδίου οἴκου προϊστάμενον. In 1 Cor.iv.7 
who distinguisheth thee (declares thee pre-eminent) ? but what hast thou, 
that thou didst not receive ? 1.6. but if thou appealest to the pre-eminence 
which thou possessest, I ask thee, hast thou not received it? In 1 Cor. 
vii. 7 (Flatt, Schott) δέ signifies potiws. In 1 Cor. x. 11 ἐγράφη δέ, as 
even the leading position of the verb indicates, forms an antithesis to the 
statement that precedes: all these things happened etc.; but they were 
written ete. In 1 Cor. xv. 13 δέ is a genuine adversative: if Christ is 
492 risen, then the resurrection of tlie dead is a reality; but if the resurrection 
Th el. of the dead is not a reality, then (by converse reasoning) neither is Christ 
risen. Verse 14 contains a further inference: but if Christ is not risen, 
402 then ete. The one statement of necessity establishes or invalidates the 
6th ed. other. In 2 Pet. i. 18 δέ forms the antithesis to the words καίπερ εἰδότας 
ete. On Phil. iv. 18 see Mey. ᾿ 


1 In the sense of namely; that is, both conjunctions coincide : by means of δέ a new 
clause is annexed which is part of the statement; while by means of ydp a clause is 
presented as a confirmatory illustration of what precedes. The latter mode of expres- 
sion is often in substance equivalent to the former ; see Hm. Vig. p. 845. 


§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 453 


c) Nor does it ever serve as a mere copula or particle of transition : 
Matt. xxi. 3 (Schott) say, the Lord hath need of them; and straightway 
he will send them, i.e. these words will not be without effect ; but, on the 
contrary, he will straightway etc. In Acts xxiv. 17 the narration proceeds 
by means of δέ to another event. In 1 Cor. xiy. 1 δέ means but: but the 
διώκειν τὴν ἀγάπην must not prevent you from ζηλοῦν τὰ πν. On 2 Cor. 
ii. 12 Meyer’s opinion is more correct than de Wette’s; Paul refers to 
vs. 4. In 1 Cor. xi. 2 it would be a mistake to regard, as Riick. does, δέ 
as indicating merely the advance to a new topic (Luther has not translated 
it at all, while Schott renders it by quidem); the words connect themselves 
(direetly) with the exhortation immediately preceding, μιμηταί pov γίνεσθε: 414 
yet (while I thus urge you, I do not mean to blame you) J praise you ete. 
Likewise in Rom. iv. 3 Luther and many other translators have neglected 
δέ (at the beginning of a quotation where the Sept. has καί) ; but Paul is 
probably as little chargeable as James (ii. 23) with having used the adver- 
sative particle wantonly or without meaning. It renders ἐπίστευσε more 
forcible, not to say almost antithetic. 

8. Tap is incorrectly taken 

a) for the adversative but (Markland, Eur. suppl. vs.8; Elmsley, Eur. 
Med. 121; see, on the other hand, Hm. Vig. 846; Bremi in the n. krit. 
Journ. IX. 533): In 2 Cor. xii. 20 7 say all that for your edification ; for 
I fear ete. (this is the very reason that I say it). In Rom. iv. 13 the 
clause with γάρ confirms the last words of the preceding verse, ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ 
πίστεως τοῦ πατρός etc. In Rom. v. 6f. the first γάρ simply refers to 
the fact which attested the love of God (vs. 5),— Christ’s dying for the 
ungodly ; the second γάρ explains, a contrario, how death (of the innocent) 
for the guilty evinces transcendent love; the third ydp substantiates the 
remark μόλις ὑπὲρ δικαίου etc. 1 Cor. v. 3 means: and ye, have ye not 
felt yourselves compelled to exclude the man? for J (for my part), absent 
tn body,... have already decided ete. It was, therefore, surely to be 
expected that ye, who have him before your eyes, would have applied the 
(milder) punishment of exclusion. Pott understands yap here in the sense 
of alias! As to 1 Cor.iv.9 see above, p. 446 4). 2 Cor. xii. 6 is: of myself 
I will not boast ; for if I should desire to boast, I shall not be a fool (there- 
fore, I might do so). In Phil. iii. 20 ἡμῶν γάρ etc. stands in closest rela- 
tion to of τὰ ἐπίγεια pov. they that mind earthly things! (a summary of 
vs. 19), for our conversation is in heaven (on this very account I warn 
you against them, vs. 18f.). In Rom. viii. 6 the clause with γάρ states 
the reason why οἱ κατὰ πνεῦμα (vs. 4) τὰ τοῦ πν. φρονοῦσιν. which is, that 
the φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός leads to death, but the φρόν. rod πν. to life; vs. 5, 423 
however, is confirmatory of vs. 4. In Col. ii. 1 Bengel had already in- 1th of 
dicated the correct interpretation. Heb. vii. 12 (Kiihnél: autem) appends 
the reason for vs. 11: for change in the priestly succession and abolition 
of the law necessarily go together, see Bleek in loc. 2 Pet. iii.5 explains 


454 § 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 


(Pott) how such men can come forward with such frivolous assertions as 
403 in vss. 3,4. Heb. xii. 3 enforces the preceding resolution τρέχωμεν ete., by 
bth el. reference to the example of Christ. 

Ὁ) for therefore, then: Bengel’s remark throws light on Luke xii. 58 : 
γάρ saepe ponitur, ubi propositionem excipit tractatio. 1 Cor. xi. 26 
elucidates the expression εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν vs. 25. In Rom. ii. 28 

475 the connection is this: the uncircumcised, who lives agreeably to the law, 
may convict thee, who, though circumcised, transgressest the law; for it 
is not what is external (like circumcision) that constitutes the real Jew. 

On Heb. ii. 8 see above, p. 447. 

c) for although: as in Jno. iv. 44 (see Kiihnél) ; but γάρ is simply for ; 
πατρίς can only mean Galilee, vs. 43. 

d) for on the contrary: 2 Pet. i.9 (Augusti). Δέ might have been 
used, if the apostle had intended to say: but he, on the contrary, who lacks 
these (virtues) etc. With γάρ, the sentence confirms (illustrates) the 
foregoing οὐκ ἀργοὺς ... Χριστοῦ ἐπίγνωσιν a contrario (μή) : for he that 
lacks these, is blind. This interpretation supplies, too, a more forcible 
reason for the exhortation in vs. 10. 

e) for ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως nevertheless: 2 Cor. xii. 1 (where indeed the reading 
is extremely uncertain; yet the common reading δή is not so decidedly 
incorrect as Mey. insists) to boast (xi. 22 ff.) ts not expedient for me surely ; 
Sor I will (1 will, that is to say, Klotz, Devar. 11. 235) now come to visions 
and revelations of the Lord. Paul in this passage contrasts (cf. vs. 5) 
boasting of himself (of his own merits) with boasting of the divine marks 
of distinction accorded him. Of these last he will boast, vs.5. Accordingly, 
the meaning is: yet glorying in self is not expedient ; for now will I come 
to a subject for glorying that excludes all self-glorification and renders it 
super fluous. 

f) for the mere copula: In Rom. iii. 2 πρῶτον μὲν yap commences the 
proof of the statement πολὺ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον. Acts ix. 11 inquire in the 
house of Judas for Saul of Tarsus; for, behold, he prayeth (thou wilt 
therefore find him there), and he hath seen a vision (which has prepared 
him to receive thee), cf. Bengel in loc. In Acts xvii. 28 rod yap yévos 
etc. is a verse quoted verbatim from Aratus, where, moreover, γάρ may be 
taken as confirmatory of ἐν αὐτῷ ζῶμεν καὶ κινούμεθα καὶ ἐσμέν. In Acts 
iv. 12 the clause οὐδὲ γὰρ ὄνομά ἐστιν etc. serves to unfold, and thus to 
establish, the statement ἐν ἄλλῳ οὐδενὶ ἡ σωτηρία; and what the second 
clause adds to the first the attentive reader will easily perceive. In Acts 
xiii. 27 we may, with Bengel, Meyer, and others,.restore the connection 
thus: to you, ye (foreign) Jews etc. ts this word of salvation addressed ; 
for those at Jerusalem have despised this Saviour. It is more probable, 

424 however, that Paul intended to proceed thus: for he is proved to be the 
ith ol. Messiah foretold to our fathers, cf. vss. 29, 32 ff. The recital of the facts 
in which the prophecies were fulfilled, impairs, however, the formal com- 


§53. CONJUNCTIONS. 455 ~ 


pactness of the reasoning. At all events γάρ is not a mere particle of 
transition, as Kiihnél asserts. In 2 Cor. iii. 9 it appears to me that the 
words εἰ γὰρ ἡ διακ. ete. go so far towards establishing the apostle’s thought 

as διακονία τῆς δικαιοσύνης expresses something more definite than διακονία 476 
τοῦ πνεύματος : tf the-ministration of death was glorious, ... how shall not 

the ministration of the Spirit be much more glorious? Fr.’s exposition, 

in his diss. Corinth. I. p. 18 sq., seems to me artificial. In Matt. i. 18 404 
(Schott), after the words rod Ἰησοῦ Xp. ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν, the details Oth ed. 
commence as is not unusual with γάρ namely. 

4. Οὖν is falsely taken 

a) for but: Acts ii. 30 (Kiihndél) zpo¢. οὖν ὑπάρχ. is simply an inference 
from the sentence that precedes: David died and was buried. He there- 
fore, in his character of prophet, referred to Christ’s resurrection in the 
words which he used apparently in reference to himself. Acts xxvi. 22 
is not antithetic to vs. 21; but Paul, reviewing his apostolic life up to this 
imprisonment, concludes: by the help of God, therefore, I continue until 
this day, etc. Even Kiihnél, in his Comment. p. 805, accurately renders 
οὖν by tgitur ; but in the index οὖν is represented as here denoting sed, 
tamen! In Matt. xxvii. 22 τί οὖν ποιήσω Ἰησοῦν is: what then shall I do 
with Jesus (since you have decided in favor of Barabbas) ? 

b) for for. In Matt. x. 32 πᾶς οὖν ὅςτις is not confirmatory of the clause 
πολλῶν στρουθίων διαφέρετε ὑμεῖς, but resumes and continues the main 
thought vs. 27 κηρύξατε etc. καὶ μὴ φοβεῖσθε. Fr. is of a different opinion. 
In the parallel passage, Luke xii. 8 λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν - πᾶς ὃς ἂν ὁμολογήσῃ 
etc., the δέ is substantially the same in sense but more expressive. In 
1 Cor. iii. 5 τίς οὖν ἐστὶν ... ᾿Απολλώς ; who, then (to follow out your party- 
strifes), is ... Apollos? In 1 Cor. vii. 26 οὖν introduces the γνώμη which 
the apostle proposes in vs. 25 to give. 

6) for a mere copula, or as wholly superfluous: Rom. xy. 17 (Kollner) 
becomes at once plain by a reference to vss. 15, 16 (διὰ τὴν χάριν etc). 
The οὖν in Matt. v. 23 is entirely overlooked even by Schott; but it 
unquestionably introduces, however, a practical inference (admonition) 
from vs. 22 (the punishableness of anger etc.). It is more difficult to 
determine the connection in Matt. vii. 12, and even the more recent ex- 
positors differ widely from each other. Tholuck’s exposition is probably 
correct, though his review of the various interpretations is far from com- 
plete. In Jno. viii. 38 καὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν ἃ ἠκούσατε παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ποιεῖτε the 
οὖν is far from being redundant; it contrasts with sad irony the conduct 
of the Jews (you also, therefore) with the conduct of Jesus, representing 
both as following the same principle. 


Of the preceding four conjunctions δέ and οὖν are the most closely 
allied ; and hence there are passages where either might have been em- 
ployed with equal propriety (e.g. Matt. xviii. 31), though even in the 
mere continuation of discourse (in narration) they are not strictly equiv- 


456 § 53, CONJUNCTIONS, 


- 


ATT alent. Instead of: Jesus found two fishermen, who... And (but) he said 
425 to them etc., I can also say: Jesus found... So (then) he said to them. 
ith αἱ. "The change does not greatly affect the sense, but still there is a difference 


405 
6th οἱ. 


. 418 


of conception between the two. In the first case, to the coming and finding 
them the speaking is annexed as something new and different; in the last, 
the thought is this: he said then (availing himself of the opportunity) to 
them. If in such an instance the narrator employs δέ, it cannot be asserted 
that he ought to have used οὖν; or vice versa. Tdp and δέ, also, can 
sometimes be used with equal propriety (see 10, 2,b) p. 452):.In Jno. 
vi. 10 the evangelist wrote: Jesus said, make the people recline; now (but) 
there was much grass in the place. He might also have written: for 
there was much grass, etc. In the latter case he represents the circum- 
stance as the incidental’ cause of the direction; in the former, it is given 
as merely explanatory ; see Klotz II. 362; ef. Hm. Vig. 845 sq. Here 
also then there is a difference of conception in the two cases. Consequently 
we may not adduce parallel passages, such as Luke xiii. 35, cf. Matt. 
xxiii. 39, as proof of the perfect equality of δέ and γάρ. Even, however, 
if in such cases δέ and οὖν, δέ and γάρ, are pretty nearly equivalent, it does 
not follow that they are interchangeable in all, even their more precise, 
significations. On the other hand, yap and ἀλλά are particles of far too 
definitive a nature to admit of their being used for each other at will, or 
even being unimportant. Finally, even in the most ancient Codd. (and 
versions ') numerous variations are found, in respect to the conjunctions 
δέ and γάρ Matt. xxiii.5; Mark ν. 42; xii. 2; xiv.2; Luke x. 42; xii. 30; 
xx. 40; Jno. ix. 11; xi. 30, etc.; Rom. iv. 15 (Fr. Rom. II. 476), δέ and 
ow Luke x. 37; xiii. 18; xv. 28; Jno. vi. 3; ix. 26; x. 20; xii. 44; 
xix. 16; Acts xxviii. 9 etc., οὖν and γάρ Acts xxv. 11; Rom. iii. 28. 


5. Ὅτι is not equivalent : 

a) to διό wherefore (as the Hebrew “>, but likewise erroneously, ἴδ᾽ 
sometimes rendered; see my Simonis under the word, yet see Passow - 
under ὅτι) : In Luke vii. 47 nothing but a blind hostility to the Catholics 
(see Grotius and Caloy. in loc.) could misinterpret ὅτι, see Mey. in loc. 
As to 2 Cor. xi. 10 see above, no. 9 p. 449. 

Nor is this particle used for διὰ τέ in direct question (Palairet, observ. 
125; Alberti, observ. 151; Krebs, observ. 50; Griesbach, commentar. 
crit. II. 188 ; Schweigh. lexic. Herod. II. 161 [Bttm. Gramm. des N. T. 


1 These latter, therefore, where conjunctions are concerned, ought not to be cited in 
a critical apparatus as authorities without great caution. Yet in general, nothing has 
been treated so negligently by the earlier critics as the ancient versions ; even the 
better known and most accessible are, ten to one, brought forward incorrectly, — when, 
that is to say, either from the nature of the language or the principles on which they 
were executed they can be made to furnish no evidence respecting a various reading. 
But it is to be regretted that even in the most recent editions this part of the critical 
apparatus still appears unsifted. 


§ 53, CONJUNCTIONS. 451 


Sprachgebr. 5. 2187) in Mark ix.11; even de Wette so understands it, and 

in support of his opinion refers to the passages which Krebs adduces from 
Josephus, not considering that there 6 τι (ὅ,τι, as Lehm. printed it) is 
used as a pronoun in an indirect question, —a usage that assuredly does 

not require proofs from Josephus (Kypke I.178). But as to this passage, 426 
see above, p. 167. Fr. was disposed on very slight authority to read τί Tth ed, 
οὖν (from Matt.), which is undoubtedly a correction, In Mark ix. 28 the 
best Codd. (even the Alex. [but not Sin.]) give διὰ τί, as in Matt. xvii. 19. 

In Mark ii. 16 Cod. D at least gives the same [likewise Cod. Sin.], yet 
Lachm. reads τί ὅτι. But ὅτι, though admitted as the true reading, would 

not necessarily be an interrogative. As to Jno, viii. 25 (Liicke), see 

§ 54, 1 p. 464. 

b) to guanquam: Kiihnél renders Luke xi. 48 though they killed 
them, yet ye etc. Beza had already given the right exposition of the 
passage. In Matt. xi. 25 Kiihndl has himself, in the fourth edition, given 
up this interpretation; and in his third edition also explains correctly 
Jno. viii. 45. 

ce) to ὅτε. As tol Jno. iii. 14, see BCrus. In 1 Cor. iii. 13 (Pott) 
ὅτι obviously specifies why ἡ ἡμέρα δηλώσει ete. Everybody is aware that 
ὅτι and dre have often been interchanged by the transcribers (cf. Jno. xii. 41 ; 

1 Cor. xii. 2; 1 Pet. iii. 20, etc.) ; see Schaef. Greg. Cor. p. 491; Schneider, 
Plat. rep. 1. 898 ; Siebelis, ind. Pausan. p. 259. Accordingly in the Sept. 
wherever ὅτι appears to have the meaning of when or as, we must un- 406 
hesitatingly read ὅτε (even in 1 Kings viii. 37), as the recent editions give Mth ed 
on good manuscript authority in all the passages quoted by Pott on 1 Cor. 
as above. : ; 

4) to profecto: In Matt. xxvi. 74 ὅτι is recitative; on the other hand, 
in 2 Cor. xi. 10 it means that (as after solemn oaths), see above, no. 9 
ΟΡ. 449. In Rom. xiv. 11 (from Isa. xly. 23) the sense is: I swear by my 
life, that ete. 

Lastly, for a refutation of the assertion that ὅτι is equivalent to ὅς, 
as according to some is the case in Matt. v. 45, see Fr. in loc. Ws. 45 
declares that by ἀγαπᾶν τοὺς ἐχθρούς etc. they will become children of their 
Father in heaven, and proves this from that Father’s treatment of the 
πονηροί. ; 

6. “Iva to the end that, in order that (sometimes preceded by a prepara- 
tory εἰς τοῦτο, Jno. xviii. 37; Acts ix. 21; Rom. xiv. 9, etc.), is said to be 479 
frequently employed in the N. T. ἐκβατικῶς to denote the actual consequence 
(Glass. ed. Dathe I. 539 sqq.), as it has sometimes been taken in Greek 
authors also, see Hoogeveen, doctr. particul. I. 524 sq., the annotations on 
Lucian. Nigr. 30; Weiske, Xen. Anab, 7, 3, 28; cf. also Ewald, Apocal. 

p- 233. Now even if this were possible as a general principle, inasmuch 

as the Latin ut denotes both design and result (though the gradual weak- 

ening of iva in later Greek see § 44, 8 is no proof of it), yet no one will 
58 


ς 


407 
Gh ed. 


480 


458 § 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 


deny that expositors have made most immoderate use of this principle and 
are chargeable with great exaggeration.’ The alleged use, wholly unknown 
e.g. to Devar., was denied by Lehmann, Lucian. Tom. I. 71, and afterwards 
by Fr. Matt. exe. 1, and by Beyer in the n. krit. Journ. IV. 418 ff.; 
yet cf. also Liicke, Comment. on Jo. 11.571 f.; Mey.on Matt. i. 22. Beyer’s 
view was combated by Steudel in Bengel’s n. Archiv IV. 504f.; and 
Tittmann, Synon. 11. 35 sqq., has also declared himself in favor of ἵνα 
éxBarixov.2 Others, as Olshausen, bibl. Comment. IT. 250 and Bleek, Heb. 


. II. I. 283, are for admitting the ecbatic sense at least in single passages ; 


[Bttm., too, (Gramm. des N. 'T. Sprachgebr. S. 206) asserts that there 


“are passages of the N. T. where ἵνα has more of the ecbatic sense than of 


the final, and where we shall come nearer the author’s thought if we 
translate it by so that (i.e. ὥςτε with Inf.).] In the first. place, most ex- 
positors have hitherto overlooked the fact that their judgment of the use 
of ἵνα is often to be shaped in accordance with Hebrew teleology, which 


“interchanges historic results with divine designs and decrees, or rather 


represents every (important, and especially every surprising) event as 
ordered and designed by God (cf. e.g. Exod. xi. 9; Isa. vi. 10, Knobel 
in loc. ; cf. Rom. xi. 11; see BCrus. bibl. Theol. 5. 272; Tholuck, Ausleg. 
ἃ. Br. a. ἃ. Rom. 3 Aufl. 5. 395 ff.),? and that on this account ἵνα may 
oftentimes be used in the biblical dialect where we, agreeably to our 
conception of the divine government of the world, should have employed 
ὥςτε. Other passages have not been examined attentively enough; else 
it would have become evident that even according to the ordinary modes 
of thought iva is employed there correctly. In still other passages it has 


‘escaped observation that sometimes the expression to, in order to, is em- 


ployed for rhetorical reasons, by a sort of hyperbole (e.g. so then I must 
go there in order to get sick! cf. Isa. xxxvi. 12; Ps. li. 6; Liv. 3, 10; 
Plin. Paneg. 6,4; I have, then, built a house in order to see it burn 
down !) ; or lastly, that ἵνα merely expresses (what in the regular course 


1 If indeed with Kiihnél (Hebr. p. 204) we lay it down as a principle that ἵνα denotes 
consilium only saepius, we shall easily make up our minds to take the conjunction 
ἐκβατικῶς. 

3 He thinks that even in Attic poets he has found instances of the kind. But 
Aristoph. nub. 58 δεῦρ᾽ ἔλθ᾽ ἵνα κλάῃς is obviously not one; and Aristoph. vesp. 313 
receives its explanation in the remark soon to be made above. Likewise in Mr. Anton. 
7,25 ἵνα is undoubtedly τελικόν., How unceremoniously Tittmann disposes of the N. T. 
in order to make out his theory is apparent from his treatment (p. 45) of Jno. i. 7, 
where in fact no unprejudiced expositor will take the second ἵνα as ἐκβατικόν. Even 
Kiihnél has not done so. 

8 ΠῸ assert that the Israelites uniformly confounded design and result (Unger de 
parabol. p. 173), would be saying too much. This took place only in their religious 
views of events (in devout speech, BCrus. Jo. I. 198). When these did not influence 
them the sharp distinction between in order that and so that must certainly have made 
itself felt by the Israelites. Their having in their language a special expression for so 
that shows that they had a correct notion of the distinction. 


§ 53, CONJUNCTIONS. 459 


of nature and life is) the necessary result, one which is therefore so to 
speak unconsciously intended by the person that does some given act (cf. 
Liicke, Jo. I. 603; Fr. Rom. viii. 17), see below on Jno. ix. 2. 
Passing over those examples which will be readily understood by the 
attentive reader (as 1 Pet. i. 7, where Pott from mere habit as it were 
takes ἵνα for ὥςτε), we select the following, in which ἵνα is supposed even 
by good expositors to be used de eventu: 
In Luke ix. 45 (the divine) purpose is indicated by ἵνα (cf. Matt. xi. 25): 
that they might not at that time perceive it (otherwise, they would have 
been perplexed with regard to Jesus). In Luke xiv. 10 ἵνα corresponds 
to μήποτε vs. 8, and very clearly expresses design (not without reference 
to the application of the parable): be humble, ἐπ order that thou mayest 
be deemed worthy of his heavenly kingdom; the result is indicated wholly 
in τότε ἔσται etc. As to Mark iv. 12 (Schott) see Fr. and Olsh. and below, 428 
p- 461. Cf. also Luke xi. 50; Matt. xxiii. 34 f. / In Jno. iv. 36 the sense ΤῺ οἱ. 
_is: this is so ordered in order that etc. In Jno. vii. 23 (Steudel) the words 

ἵνα μὴ λυθῇ ὃ νόμος Muwiicéws express the design underlying the custom 
περιτομὴν λαμβάνει ἄνθρωπος ἐν σαββάτῳ. Jno. ix. 2 is to be explained by 

the Jewish theory of final causes, which in its national exaggeration the 
disciples shared. Severe, inexplicable, bodily afflictions must be divinely 
ordained penalties for sin: who then by his sin has moved the penal justice 

of God to cause this man to be born blind? The necessary consequence 
(though undesignedly induced) of ἁμαρτάνειν is meant, see Liicke in loc. 

In Jno. xi. 15 ἵνα πιστεύσητε is added to δι᾿ ὑμᾶς by way of explanation: 

I rejoice on your account (that I was not there), to the end that ye may 
believe, ice. now ye cannot but believe. In Jno. xix. 28 ἵνα means in order 
that, whether with Luther we join ἵνα red. ἡ γραφή to πάντα ἤδη τετέλ. (80 
Mey.), or with Liicke and de Wette to the following λέγει ; in the latter case 

iva denotes a purpose attributed by John to Jesus. As to Jno. xvi. 24 see 
Liicke. In Rom. xi.31 iva does not indicate the design of the ἀπειθοῦντες, 

but God’s decree which linked itself to this unbelief cf. vs. 32, to bring 
them salvation (not as merited, but) out of mercy. In connection with 

the divine plan, then, unbelief is designed etc., cf. also vs. 11. In the 408 
same way is v. 20f. to be explained, and probably also 2 Cor. i. 9. The bth ed. 
same teleological view clearly finds place in Jno. xii. 40 in a quotation 
from the O.T. Rom. ix. 11 only requires attention to be plain; and it is 
fairly surprising that Reiche should still take ἵνα as ecbhatic. The meaning 481 
of 2 Cor. v. 4 is obvious; and it passes comprehension how even Schott 
could render iva by ita μέ. In 1 Cor. v.5 εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός shows 
how an intention of promoting the good of the πνεῦμα is connected with 

the apostolic παραδοῦναι τῷ Σατανᾷ; beyond contradiction, therefore, iva 
denotes in order that. In 1 Cor. vii. 29 the words iva καὶ οἱ ἔχοντες ete. 
indicate the (divine) purpose of 6 καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος etc. The same 
applies to Eph. ii. 9. In Eph. iii. 10 ἕνα γνωρισθῇ etc. is probably de- 


460 § 53, CONJUNCTIONS. 


pendent grammatically on rod ἀποκεκρυμμένου in vs. 9, see Mey. In Eph. 
iv. 14 ἵνα etc. expresses the negative design of what had been stated in 
vss. 11-18, 

As to Gal. v.17 (Usteri, BCrus.) see Mey. 1 Cor. xiv. 13 ὁ λαλῶν 
γλώσσῃ προςευχέσθω, ἵνα διερμηνεύῃ means : let him pray (not in order to 
make a display of his χάρισμα τῶν γλωσσῶν, but) with the intention, for 
the purpose, of interpreting (the prayer). 1 Jno. iii. 1 behold, how great 
love the Father has shown us (with the intention) that we should be called 
children of God ; see Liicke; BCrus. is not decided. In Rev. viii 12 ἵνα 
expresses the object contemplated in the wAyrrecOa of the sun ete. ; for 
πλήττ. does not denote, as many suppose, the actual darkening of the 
heavenly bodies, but is the Ὁ. T, m2m used in reference to the wrath of 
God, see Ewald in loc. In Rev. ix. 20 the intention of μετανοεῖν is ex- 
pressed in iva μή : they did not amend, 7 order no longer to serve demons 
etc. The discernment of the fact that the objects of their worship were — 

429 mere demons and wooden idols, should have led them to μετάνοια, in order 
ith el. ¢¢ emancipate themselves from so degrading a worship. In 1 Thess. v. 4 
(Schott, BCrus.) ἵνα denotes design on the part of God, see Liinemann. 
Under the telic sense comes also John’s expression ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα ἵνα Jno. 
xii. 23: the hour is (by God’s decree) come (consequently is present in 
order) that I etc., cf. xiii. 1; xvi. 2,32. Inaccurate expositors took iva 
in these passages as in 1 Cor. iv. 3; vii. 29 for ὅτε or ὅταν. 2 Cor. vii. 9 
(Riick., Schott) ye were brought into sorrow, tn order that (God’s purpose) 
ye might be spared a more severe chastisement. Ye did not rather mourn, 
in order that ... might be expelled? Here, it is true, ὥςτε might also be 
used if αἴρεσθαι were regarded as the natural result of πενθῆσαι. Paul, 
however, conceives of it as the end: ye should have mourned with this 
end in view, to expel him. In 2 Cor. xiii. 7 the double ἵνα indicates the 
aim of Paul’s prayer: first negatively, then positively. The correct ex- 
position of Rom. iii. 19 is probably now to be regarded as settled; see 
also Philippi. Only BCrus. still hesitates. As to Rom. viii. 17 see p. 459. 
In 2 Cor. i. 17, however, ἵνα preserves its meaning, whether we explain 
the passage: what I resolve, do I resolve according to the flesh, that (with 
482 the intent that) the yea with me may be (unalterably) yea, and the nay nay 
(i.e. merely to show my own consistency)? or thus: im order that with 
me there should be (found) yea yea, and nay nay (that both should be 
found with me at the same time, that I should afterwards deny what I had 
409 affirmed). In 2 Cor. iv. 7 iva ἣ ὑπερβολή ete. refers to God’s purpose in 
δὲν οὐ, the fact that ἔχομεν τὸν θησαυρὸν τοῦτον ἐν ὀστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν. In 
Heb. xi. 35 the words ἵνα κρείττονος ἀναστάσεως τύχωσιν indicate the 
purpose with which those persons refused the ἀπολύτρωσις. On Heb. 
xii, 27 see Bleek and de Wette. In Rev. xiv. 13 (Schott) probably 
ἀποθνήσκουσι (from ἀποθνήσκοντες) is to be repeated before iva ἀναπαύσωνται. 
Ewald and de Wette are of a different opinion, ef. above, ὃ 43, 5, p. 317. 


§ 53, CONJUNCTIONS. 461 


That the expression ἵνα (ὅπως) πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθέν in Matt. or ἣ γραφή, 
ὃ λόγος in John, which was for some time reduced to a mere ita ut, has 
in the mouth (of Jewish teachers and so) of Jesus and the apostles (when 
used in reference to an event which has already occurred) the more precise 
sense of in order that it might be fulfilled, cannot be doubted ; ef. also Olsh. 
and Mey. on Matt. i. 22. But it certainly was not meant by this that God or 
had caused an event to occur,or impelled men inevitably to act in a certain 
manner, for the very purpose of fulfilling the prophecies (Tittm. Synon. 
II. 44) ; the expression is very far from implying any sort of fatalism, 
Liicke Jo. 11. 536.1. With this expression, moreover, is Mark iv. 12 also 
to be classified : all things are done to them in parables, in order that they 430 
may see and yet not perceive etc., for: in order that the declaration (in Th ed 
Isa. vi. 10) may be fulfilled: they will see and yet not etc. We too are 
accustomed to interweave such quotations with our discourse, when they 
may be presumed to be well known. Jesus cannot intend to assert the 
general impossibility of understanding such parables (for then it would 
have been strange indeed to speak in parables at all) ; but means that to 
persons who do not comprehend parables so very plain might be applied 
the saying of the prophet: he sees and understands not ; and that there 
would be such men had been expressly predicted. 

In the defective diction of the Apocalypse iva is apparently used once, 
xili. 13, for ὥςτε or ὡς, after an adjective including the notion of intensity: —— 
magna miracula, i.e. tam magna, ut etc. This would be as admissible at 
least as ὅτι after an intensive, cf. Ducas p. 34, 28, p.182; Theophan. cont. 
p- 663; Cedren. 11. 47; Canan. p. 465; Theod. H. E. 2, 6, p. 847 ed. 
Hal., and my Erlang. Pfingstprogr. 1830, p.11. Yet see p. 338. It is 
otherwise in 1 Jno.i. 9 (a passage misconstrued even by de Wette and 
Schott): he is faithful and just, in order to forgive us (with a view to 483 
forgive, that he may forgive) ; cf. in German: er ist scharfsinnig, um 
einzusehen. This expressed thus: er ist scharfsinnig, so dass er einsieht, 
conveys in substance the same meaning, yet exhibits the thought under 
an aspect somewhat different. Here belong also the passages quoted by 
Tittmann (Synon. II. 39) from Mr. Anton. 11, 3; Justin. M. p. 504. 
Bengel’s remark on Rev. as above: ἵνα frequens Joanni particula; in 
omnibus suis libris non nisi semel, cap. 8, 16 ev., ὥςτε posuit etc. is indeed 410 
correct, yet is not to be understood as if John used iva indiscriminately for Sth ed 
ὥςτε. The reason why ὥςτε so seldom occurs in John is partly owing to 
the doctrinal turn of his writings, and partly to the fact that he expresses . 
result by other constructions. 


1 Bengel, on Matt. i. 22, says, in the doctrinal phraseology of his time yet in the main 
correctly, ubicunque haec locutio occurrit, gravitatem evangeélistarum tueri debemus et, 
quamvis hebeti visu nostro, credere ab illis notari eventum non modo talem, qui 
formulae cuipiam veteri respondeat, sed plane talem, qui propter veritatem divinam non 


- potuerit non subsequi ineunte N. T. 


462 § 54. ADVERBS. 


Some insist that iva is used for ὅτι in Mark ix. 12 γέγραπται ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν 
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἵνα πολλὰ πάθῃ καὶ ἐξουδενωθῇ. But the words probably 
mean, in order that he suffer; this must be understood as an answer to 
the question, and ἔρχεται or ἐλεύσεται supplied before it. Nobody will be 
misled by the passage which Palairet (obs. 127) has quoted from Soph. 
Aj. 385 οὐχ ὁρᾷς, ἵν᾿ εἶ κακοῦ; where iva is an adverb. (Some take ὅπως 
for ὅτι, ὡς in Xen. C. 3, 3,20; 8, 7, 20, see Poppo in loc.) 

Many render also ὅπως in order that erroneously by ita ut (Kiihnél, Act. 
129; Tittm. Synon. If. ὅδ, 58). In Luke ii. 86 (BCrus. ?) it is’ hardly 
necessary to refer to the Hebrew teleology to discover the meaning of the 
conjunction. Acts ili. 19 is plain if ὅπως ἀποστείλῃ τὸν Xp. vs. 20 be 
understood of the opening of the kingdom of heaven, as vs. 21 requires. 
What was remarked in reference to iva p. 457 sq. elucidates Matt. xxiii. 35. 
Philem. 6 is connected with vs. 4: I make mention of thee in my prayers, in 
order that etc. Meyer’s objections to this reference are groundless. In 
Heb. ii. 9 (Kiihnél) the clause with ὅπως receives so much light from 

431 vs. 10 that scarcely any expositor is now likely to render the ὅπως by ita 
ith ed. xt, On ὅπως πληρωθῇ see above, p. 461. 

‘Qs as a particle of comparison always means in the N. T. as, not so 
(for οὕτως), as in 1 Pet. iii. 6 Pott might have learnt even from Bengel. 
Nowhere also in the N. T. is there a reason for writing it é;—a form, 
moreover, very rare (Heind. and Stallb. Plat. Protag. ο. 15) in prose 
writers (with the exception of the Ionic). In Heb. iii. 11; iv. ὃ (Sept.) 
ὡς may be rendered by that, so that; in which sense it is sometimes used 
with the Indicative even in good Greek authors (Her. 1, 163; 2, 135). 
On Mark xiii. 84 and similar passages, see Fr.; to assume there with Mey. 
an anacoluthon is quite unnecessary. 


484 §54, ADVERBS. 


1. Adverbs are so indispensable in defining closely relations of 
quality, that we can easily understand how it is that the N. T. wri- 
ters, though inferior to the Greek prose authors as respects the 
use of conjunctions, have yet mastered pretty well the resources 
of the Greek tongue in adverbs, considered extensively ; it is only 
when it is viewed intensively, i.e. as respects the finer shades of 

_thought conveyed by several of the simple adverbs (e.g. ἄν) and by 
adverbial compounds, that their usage betrays them to be foreigners 
who did not feel the need of such refinements. 

Derivative (adjectival) adverbs are the more numerous in the 
N.T., because the later Greek had derived from many adjectives 

411 adverbial forms previously unknown, and had adopted into ordi- 
ithe. nary prose other words of the class which had hitherto been used 


854. ADVERBS. 463 


only in poetry. Cf. ἀκαίρως (Sir. xxxii. 4), ἀναξίως (2 Mace. 
xiv. 42), ἀνόμως (2 Mace. viii. 17), ἀποτόμως (since Polyb.), 
ἐκτενῶς (likewise ; Lob. Phryn. 311), ἀπερισπάστως (likewise ; 
Lob. 415), ἑτοίμως (for which the Attic language at least used 
ἐξ ἑτοίμου), εὐθύμως (since Polyb.), ἐσχάτως (cf. Lob. 889), εὐ- 
apéotws (Arrian. Epict. 1, 12, 21), κενῶς (Arrian. Epict. 2, 17, 6 
(εἰς κενόν), προςφάτως, τελείως, πολυτρόπως and πολυμερῶς, ῥητῶς, 
ἐθνικῶς in the biblical sense. 

Among the remaining adverbs also some belong to later prose, 
and give offence to the grammarians; e.g. ὑπερέκεινα see Thom. 
M. 336, οὐρανόθεν, παιδιόθεν, μακρόθεν Lob. 93 sq. 

The use of the adjective (or partic.) Neut.! for the correspond- 
ing adverb, which became more and more common in later Greek, 


does not exceed in the N. T. the limits observed in the earlier 432 


prose: cf. πρῶτον, ὕστερον, πρότερον and τὸ πρότερον, πλησίον, 
τυχόν, ἔλαττον, πολύ, τὸ νῦν ἔχον Acts xxiv. 25 for the present (Vig. 
p- 9, ef. Hm. p. 888), τοὐναντίον, λοιπὸν and τὸ λοιπόν (Hm. Vig. 
706), ταχύ, πυκνά, ἴσα, μακρά, πολλά (Often, σφόδρα) and τὰ πολλά 
(for the most part), for most of which no adverbial forms existed. 

In general, there is nothing peculiar in the N. T. diction in re- 
gard to the use of adjectives, with or without prepositions (ellip- 
tically or not), for adverbs: cf. e.g. tod λοιποῦ (Hm. as above; 
van Marle, florileg. p. 232 sq.), πεζῇ, πάντη, καταμόνας, κατ᾽ ἰδίαν, 
ἰδίᾳ, καθόλου, εἰς κενόν, and the Lexicons under the words. In- 
stead of κατὰ ἑκούσιον Philem. 14 (Num. xv. 8) ἑκουσίως, ἑκουσίᾳ 
or ἐξ ἑκουσίας is more common in Greek. It is not necessary to 
speak of genuine Greek compounds, such as παραχρῆμα ; on the 
other hand, in conformity with the genius of the Hebrew-Aramaic 
tongue, abstract substantives with prepositions, instead of adverbial 
forms actually existing, are more frequent than in Greek authors : 
e.g. ἐν ἀληθείᾳ Matt. xxii. 16, ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας Luke xxii. 59 (for 
ἀληθῶς, ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ Acts xvii. 31 for δικαίως, see above, ὃ 51. 
In 2 Cor. iv. 16 ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ, as a circumlocution for” the 
adverb daily (καθ᾽ ἡμέραν or τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, common in the N.T.), 
would be without example in the N. T. cf. pis pis, see Vorst, Hebr. 
307 sq.; Ewald, kr. Gr. 638.2 Probably, however, Paul designedly 
used the expression day by day, to indicate the progress of avaxai- 
νοῦσθαι ; whereas καθ᾽ (ἑκάστην) ἡμέραν ἀνακαινοῦται might be 
taken also in another sense. Further, we find an analogous con- 


1 However, what Hm. Eurip. Hel. p. 80 54. says in elucidation of this use of neuters, 
deserves consideration. 


2 Cf. ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ Georg. Phrantz. 4, 4, p. 356. 


τι ed, 


485 


464 § 54. ADVERBS. 


struction (though only in a local sense) in Mark vi. 89 ἐπέταξεν 
ἀνακλῖναι πάντας συμπόσια συμπόσια catervatim, (cf. Exod. 
Vili. 14,) vs. 40 ἀνέπεσον πρασιαὶ πρασιαΐί areolatim, see § 81, 3. 
These words are strictly in apposition, cf. Luke ix. 14. What 
Georgi in his Vindic. p. 340 has collected is of another sort. 


412 When a simple accusative of a noun (substantive) is used adverbially, 
δι} οὐ, this use arises strictly from an abbreviated construction (Hm. Vig. 883). 
Besides the well-known χάριν, under this head come 
a. τὴν ἀρχήν throughout, altogether (Vig. 723), which is probably so to 
be taken also in Jno. viii. 25 (see Liicke’s careful examination of the 
passage) : altogether what I also say unto you (I am entirely what in my 
discourses I profess to be). The context furnishes no ground whatever 
for preferring the interrogative to the categoric interpretation ; Meyer’s 
exposition is complicated, and appears to me least satisfactory of all. 
Ὁ. ἀκμήν used in later Greek for ἔτι, as in Matt. xv. 16; see Lob. 
Phryn. 123 sq. 
Adverbs may be joined not only to verbs, but also to nouns, as in 1 Cor. 
433 xii. 31 καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν ὁδὸν ὑμῖν δείκνυμι, see no. 2, and 1 Cor. vii. 35 πρὸς 
ith ed. τὸ εὐπάρεδρον τῷ κυρίῳ ἀπερισπάστως. 


2. The adverbial notion is sometimes expressed concretely as 
adjectival, and subjoined to the substantive (Mtth. 1001; Kiihner 
486 II. 382). This takes place not only when it is to the substantive 
(not to the verb) that a predicate (logically) belongs (though in 
German an adverb is used),! but also where such reference to the 
substantive appears to be more favorable to perspicuity:2 Acts 
xiv. 10 ἀνάστηθι ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας σου ὀρθός, Mark iv. 28 αὐτομάτη 

ἡ γῆ καρποφορεῖ, Acts xii. 10 (Iliad. 5, 749), Rom. x. 19 πρῶτος 
ἹἱΜωὺῦσῆς λέγει Cas the first), 1 Tim. ii. 13; Jno. xx. 4 ete. ;? Luke 


1 So Jno. iv. 18 τοῦτο ἀληθὲς εἴρηκας this hast thou spoken as (something) true, hoc 
verum dixisti. On the other hand, τ. ἀληθῶς efp. (which Kii/inol demands) would be 
ambiguous. Cf. Xen. vectig. 1, 2 ὅπως δὲ γνωσθῇ, ὅτι ἀληθὲς τοῦτο λέγω, Demosth. 
Halon. 34 Ὁ. τοῦτό γε ἀληθὲς λέγουσιν. 

2 Cf. especially Bremi, Exc. 2, ad Lys. 449 sq. , Mehlhorn, de adjectivor. pro adverbio 
positor. ratione et usu. Glogav. 1828. See also Vechner, Hellenol. 215 sqq.; Zumpt, 
lat. Gramm. δὲ 682, 686; KAritz, Sall. I. 125; II. 131, 216. In Latin this form of 
expression is in general still more prevalent. ichhorn (Hinleit. ins N.T. II. 261) 
makes an erroneous application of the rule in supposing that Jno. xiii. 84 ἐντοχὴν 
καινὴν δίδωμι can signify, anew (καινῶς) will I give you the commandment. But in that 
case John must at least have written (tatrnv) τὴν ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι. Even the 
position of the words precludes taking μόνου adverbially in Jno. v. 44; see Liicke. 

8 Ordinal adjectives are used for adverbs only when first, second, etc. refer to the 
person ; that is, when something is expressed which the person did before all other 
persons (was the first to do) ; but when the person is represented as doing a first act, 
in distinction from other subsequent acts of the same person, the adverb must be used. 
Cf. also γί, Sallust. 11. 174. 


8 δά. ADVERBS. 465 


xxi. 84 μήποτε ἐπιστῇ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς αἰφνίδιος ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη (var. 
αἰφνιδίως, Acts xxviii. 15 δευτεραῖοι ἤλθομεν εἰς Ποτιόλους, 1 Cor. 

ἶχ. 17 εἰ γὰρ ἑκὼν τοῦτο πράσσω .... εἰ δὲ ἄκων etc. Cf. αἰδο Luke 

v, 21; 1 Cor. ix. 6, ete. With these adjectives the construction 
described is frequent, not to say predominant, in Greck authors 
(cf. in regard to αὐτόματος Her. 2, 66; Lucian. necyom. 1; Xen. 
An. 5, 7,3; 4,3,8; Cyr. 1, 4,13; Hell.5,1,14; Dion. H. 1,139; 
Wetst: I. 569, in regard to πρῶτος Xen. An. 2, 3,19; Cyr.1,4, 2; 
Paus. 6, 4, 2; Charit. 2, 2, as to devrep. Her. 6,106; Xen. Cyr. 

5, 2,2; Arrian. Al. 5, 22,4; Wetst. 11. 654, as to αἰφνίδιος Thue. 
6,49; 8, 28, swbitus irrupit Tac. hist. 3, 47); yet with other 413 
adjectives not uncommon: Xen. Cyr. 5, 8, 55 αὐτὸς παρελαύνων "" 
tov ἵππον ... ἥσυχος κατεθεᾶτο etc. 6, 1, 45 εὖ οἷδ᾽, ὅτε ἄσμενος 

ἂν πρὸς ἄνδρα ... ἀπαλλαγήσεται (Demosth. Zenoth. 576b.; 2 Mace. 

x. 83; Pflugk, Eurip. Hel. p. 48; see, on the other hand, Acts 
xxi. 17), 7, 5,49 εἰ ταῦτα πρόθυμός σοι συλλάβοιμι (var.), 4, 
2,11 ἐθελούσιοι ἐξιόντες, Dio Chr. 40, 495 πυκνοὶ βαδίζοντες, 
Isocr. ep. 8 τελευτῶν (at last, finally) ὑπεσχόμην, cf. Palair. 214; 
Valcken. Her. 8, 130; Ellendt, Arrian. Al. 1. 156; Krii. 210 ἢ 


How far it is correct to say that adjectives are used instead of adverbs 434 
is obvious from the preceding observations. ΤῸ suppose, also, that adverbs Tth ed, 
are used instead of adjectives is a mistake (Ast,! Plat. polit. p. 271), as 487 
in Matt. i. 18 ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν, xix. 10 εἰ οὕτως ἐστὶν ἡ αἰτία τοῦ ἀνθρώπου 
(LXX. Rom. iv. 18) 1 Pet. ii. 15; 1 Thess. ii. 10 ὡς ὁσίως x. δικαίως καὶ 
ἀμέμπτως ὑμῖν ἐγενήθημεν, vs. 13; Rom. ix. 20 τί pe ἐποίησας οὕτως ; In 
the first of these passages εἶναι is not the simple copula (as in αὕτη or 
τοιοῦτό ἐστι), but denotes to be of a certain condition or character, stand, 
comparatum esse.” In Rom. ix. 20 οὕτως denotes the manner of ποιεῖν, 
the consequence of which is his being now the person that he is. Cf. 
Bremi, Aesch. Ctesiph. p. 278; Bhdy. 5. 337 f.; Hm. Soph. Antig. 633 ; 
Wex, Antig. I. 206; Mehlhorn in the allg. Lit.-Zeit. 1833. Ergzbl. no. 108; 
Lob. Paralip. p. 151; as to Lat. Kritz, Sallust. Cat. p. 306sq. Likewise 
in 1 Cor. vii. 7 ἕκαστος ἴδιον ἔχει χάρισμα, ὃς μὲν οὕτως, ὃς δὲ οὕτως the 
adverbs are in place: each has his own (peculiar) gift, one after this 
manner, another after that. 

A closer approximation to adjectives is found 

a. In certain local adverbs, such as ἐγγὺς εἶναι, χωρίς twos εἶναι Eph. 

ii. 12, πόῤῥω εἶναι Luke xiv. 32 (Krii. 244). 


1 His article in the Landshuter Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. und Kunst III. II. 133 ff. 
I have not had an opportunity of comparing. 

2 In Jno. vi. 55 there is a variant. Recent editors have preferred ἀληθής, see Liicke ; 
who, however, ably combats at the same time the opinion that ἀληθῶς and ἀληθής are 


synonymous. 
59 


466 §54, ADVERBS. 


b. In adverbs of degree annexed to substantives (ὧν being understood) ; 
as, μάλα στρατηγός Xen. Hell. 6, 2, 39, see Bhdy. 338. Usually they are 
placed before the noun, but sometimes after it. Even ancient expositors 
thus understood 1 Cor. xii. 31 καὶ ἔτι καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν δδὸν ὑμῖν δείκνυμι: 
a super-eminent (more excellent) way. Such an adverbial adjunct is placed 
after the noun in 1 Cor. viii. 7 τῇ συνειδήσει ἕως ἄρτι τοῦ εἰδώλου, Phil. i. 26; 
2 Pet. ii. 3, probably also in 2 Cor. xi. 23; see Mey. 


3. The adverbial notion of intensity is not unfrequently ex- 
pressed by joining to a verb a participle of the same verb (see § 45, 
8), or a cognate noun in the Dative (Ablative): Luke xxii. 15 
ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα I have earnestly desired, Jno. iii. 29 χαρᾷ χαίρει 
impense laetatur, Acts iv. 17 ἀπειλῇ ἀπειλησώμεθα let us straitly 
threaten, v. 28 trapayyedia παρηγγείλαμεν ὑμῖν, xxiii. 14 ἀναθέματι 
414 ἀνεθεματίσαμεν we have bound ourselves under a great curse, Jas. 
fhe. +. 17, from Sept. Matt. xiii. 14 (Isa. vi. 9); Matt. xv. 4 θανάτῳ 
τελευτάτω (Exod. xxi.15). This form of expression is of frequent 
occurrence in the Sept. and the Apoer., and is there an imitation 
of the Hebrew Infinitive absolute, cf. Isa. xxx. 19; Ixvi.10; Deut. 
488 vii. 26; Exod. xxi. 20; Josh. xxiv. 10; 1 Sam. xii. 25; xiv. 39; 
Sir. xlviii. 11; Judith vi. 4 (Vorst, Hebr. p. 624 sq.); yet it is 
sometimes found in Greck authors also (Schaef. Soph. I. 313; 
435 Ast, Plat. Epin. 586; Lob. Paralip. 524) e.g. Plat. symp. 195 Ὁ. 
Th ed. φεύγων φυγῇ τὸ γῆρας. Phaedr. 265d. ἐμοὶ φαίνεται τὰ μὲν ἄλλα 
παιδιᾷ πεπαῖσθαι, Phot. cod. 80, 118 σπουδῇ σπουδάζειν, Soph. 
Oed. R. 65 ὕπνῳ εὕδοντα, Ael. 8, 15 νίκῃ ἐνίκησε. 


Of ἃ different nature are those passages in which the Dative of the noun 
is accompanied by an adjective (or any other adjunct) ; as, ταῖς μεγίσταις 
τιμαῖς ἐτίμησαν, ζημιούτω τῇ νομιζομένῃ ζημίᾳ (Schwarz as above). These 
coincide with the mode of expression explained in § 82, 2; cf. Xen. A. 4, 
5, 833; Plut. Coriol. 3; Aristoph. Plut. 592; Aeschyl. Prom. 392; Hom. 
hymn. in Mere. 572. From the N.T.see 1 Pet. i, 8 ἀγαλλιᾶσθε χαρᾷ 
ἀνεκλαλήτῳ etc. Even the expression γάμῳ γεγαμηκώς in Demosth. 
Boeot. 639 a. has no connection with the construction in question; it 
means, as it were, having espoused by marriage i.e. living in lawful wedlock, 
as γαμεῖσθαι alone is applied also to concubinage. Even Xen. An. 4, 6, 25 
οἱ πελτασταὶ δρόμῳ ἔθεον I would except, as δρόμος denotes a particular 
sort of rapid advance: at a run, on the trot. As to Soph. Oed. C. 1625 
(1621), see Hm. in loc. 


1 Zob., as above, shows that in Greek authors this form of expression is used only 
in a figurative sense, not in a physical, as in Jer. (xxvi.) xlvi. 5. Moreover, in Latin 
the well-known occidione occidere is analogous to this construction. 


‘ny 
™ 


§ 54, ADVERBS. 3 467 


4. Certain adverbial notions the Greeks were accustomed to 
regard as verbal; accordingly, the verb which was to have been 
qualified by one of these notions, they made, in the form of an 
Infinitive or Participle, to depend on it as principal verb (Mtth. 
1279 ff.; cf. Kritz, Sallust. 1, 89): Heb. xiii. 2 ἔλαθόν τινες Eevi- 
σαντες they (escaped — their own — notice as entertaining) enter- 
tained unconsciously, wnawares (Wetst. in loc. ; cf. also Joseph. 
bell. jud. 3,7, 3; Tob. xii. 13),) Acts xii. 16 ἐπέμενε κρούων he 
knocked persistently (Jno. viii. 7) ef. Losner, obs. 203; Mark 
xiv. 8 προέλαβε μυρίσαι antevertit ungere, she anointed before- 
hand (Kypke in loe.; φθάνω also is sometimes used with the Inf. 
see Wyttenbach, Juliani orat. p.181; cf. rapere occupat Horat. Od. 
2,12, 28), Matt. vi. 5 φιλοῦσι προςεύχεσθαι they love to pray (cf. 
Ael. 14, 37 φιλῶ τὰ ἀγάλματα... ὁρᾶν) Wetst. and Fr. in loc., 
Luke xxiii. 12, see Bornem. Whether θέλω also (ἐθέλω ὃ Hm. 489 
Soph. Philoct. p. 238) is used as a finite verb to denote the adver- 
bial notion gladly, with pleasure, cheerfully (sponte), has lately 
been questioned, (that the Partic. of θέλω is so used is well known, 
ef. Mey. on Col. ii. 18).2 And in fact Jno. vili. 44 τὰς ἐπιθυμίας 415 
τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν θέλετε ποιεῖν must be rendered: the lusts of ὕ οἱ, 
your father ye will (are resolved and inclined to) do (carry into 436 
effect), either in general (your hearts impel you to follow the will of m 
Satan) or because ye go about to kill me (vs.40). The Plural here, 
which troubles de Wette, has already been explained by Liicke. 

In Jno. vi. 21, also, the interpretation given by Kiihnél and others 
is necessary only in case an attempt (for which there is no author- 
ity) is made to harmonize the narrative of this evangelist with 


- that of Matt. and Mark. At the same time this must be admitted, 


that ἤθελον ποιῆσαι they purposed, were inclined, to do (Arist. polit. 
6, 8) when from the context it is obvious that the sense is not 
confined to the mere act of will,? may signify they did it designedly, 
spontaneously, gladly, e.g. Isoer. Callim. 914 οἱ δυςτυχησάσης τῆς 
πόλεως προκινδυνεύειν ὑμῶν ἠθέλη σαν who were willing to expose 


1 Yet in Ael. 1,7 οὗτοι, ὅταν αὑτοὺς λαθόντες Soskvduov φάγωσι, we find the 
construction which corresponds to German usage. The Inf. instead of the Part. after 
λανθάνειν occurs in Leo, Chronogr. p. 19. 

2 In 2 Pet. iii. 5 λανθάνει τοῦτο θέλοντας I prefer the rendering latet eos hoc (what 
follows) volentes, ie. volentes ignorant, to the other: /atet eos (what follows), hoc (what 
precedes) volentes, i.e. contendentes ; since the former brings out more clearly the guilt 
of the mockers. In Col. ii. 18 also θέλων is not to be taken as an adverb. 

8 In Jno. vi. 21 the matter appears according to John’s account not to have gone 
beyond a mere act of the will. 


468 8 54, ADVERBS. 


themselves to danger for you (and have proved their willingness 
by their deeds), who cheerfully encountered dangers in your 
cause (Xen. Cyr. 1,1, 3). The phrase ἐθέλουσι ποιεῖν, however, 
when it does not indicate a mere act of the will, signifies according 
to the nature of the case: they do willingly, cheerfully (Demosth. 
Ol. 2 p.6a. ὅταν μὲν ὑπ᾽ εὐνοίας τὰ πράγματα συστῇ καὶ πᾶσι 
ταὐτὰ συμφέρει... καὶ συμπονεῖν καὶ φέρειν τὰς συμφορὰς καὶ 
μένειν ἐθέλουσιεν οἱ ἄνθρωποι), or they do τέ of their own accord, 
spontaneously (Xen. Hier. 7, 9 ὅταν ἄνθρωποι ἄνδρα ἡγησάμενοι ... 
ἱκανὸν ... στεφανῶσι.. .. καὶ δωρεῖσθαι ἐθέλωσι). Cf. besides 
Stallb. Plat. symp. p. 56, and Gorg. p. 86; Ast, Plat. legg. p. 28. 
According to this, Mark xii. 38; Luke xx. 46 τῶν θελόντων 
περιπατεῖν ἐν στολαῖς who wish to go about i.e. who love to go 
about, would not be bad Greek (though τῶν φιλούντων περ. would 
be preferable) ; yet this expression is perhaps to be referred pri- 
490 marily to the Hebraistic θέλειν τι delectari re, as in Mark θέλειν is 
immediately followed by the Accusative ἀσπασμούς as its object. 
5. In Hebrew, adverbial notions are to a still greater extent 
regarded as verbal; since in that language they not only are 
grammatically construed with the verb (which shows that the two 
are essentially connected), as in πίθον yom ie. he sent again, which 
is imitated in Luke xx. 11 f. προςέθετο πέμψαι (but in Mark 
416 xii. 4 we find καὶ πάλεν ἀπέστειλεν), Acts xii. 3 προςέθετο συλλα- 
thet. Θεῖν καὶ Πέτρον besides he apprehended Peter also, Mark xiv. 25 
var. (thus frequently in Sept. προςτιθέναι and Mid. προςτίθεαθαι 
437 Gen. iv. 2; xi. 6; Exod. x. 28; xiv. 13; Deut. iii. 26; xviii. 16; 
Th ed. Josh. vii. 12, etc., likewise with Inf. Pass. Judges xiii. 21), but also 
both are used as finite verbs and joined together by and: he does 
much and weeps (Ewald 631) This last construction has been 
retained in particular phrases through all periods of the language ; 
whereas in other cases this mode of expression (as it were a ἕν 
διὰ δυοῖν with verbs) passes over perceptibly into the other, which 
becomes predominant. In the N.T. also it was thought that 
instances of that former and more simple construction were to be 


1 Cf. also Orig. ς. Marcion. p. 35 Wetst. τὰ δικαίως ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς εἰρημένα βούλει 
ἀδίκως νοεῖν thou art inclined to understand, understandest designedly. 

2 The Sept. reproduce verbatim only a few of these Hebrew constructions, e.g. Judg. 
xiii. 10 ἐτάχυνεν ἡ γυνὴ καὶ ἔδραμε, 1 Sam. xxv. 42; Ps, cv. 13; Dan. x. 18; Hos. i. 6. 
Cf. on the other hand, Gen. xxvi. 18; xxx. 31; Job xix. 3; Ps. xxxii. 3. The phrase 
FO is also rendered in the Sept. by the Part.: Gen. xxxviii. 5 mpos@cioa ἔτι ἔτεκεν 
vidy etc., ΧΧΥ. 1 mposOéuevos ᾿Αβραὰμ ἔλαβε γυναῖκα, Job xxix. 1 ; xxxvi. 1. It occurs 
once also in Luke xix. 11. Besides, cf. Thiersch de Pentat. alex. p. 177. 


δά. ADVERBS. 469 


found,! as Rom. x. 20 ἀποτολμᾷ καὶ λέγει speaks out boldly, Luke 
vi. 48 ἔσκαψε καὶ ἐβάθυνε he dug deep (Schott), Col. ii. 5 χαίρων 
καὶ βλέπων seeing with joy (Beng. and Schott) etc. But in many 
passages referred to this head this explanation is quite inadmissi- 
ble, — as in 2 Cor. ix. 9 ἐσκόρπισεν, ἔδωκε τοῖς πένησιν which must 
be rendered: he dispersed abroad, he gave to the poor (Ps. exii. 9), 
— in others it is unnecessary, as in Luke vi. 48 he dug and deep- 
ened (crescit oratio, Beza) ; Jno. viii. 59 ἐκρύβη καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ 
τοῦ ἱεροῦ (BCrus.) means: he hid himself and went forth i.e. either 
withdrew from their sight, rendered himself invisible (according 
to which a miraculous ἀφανισμός of Christ is narrated), or he 
concealed himself and went (soon after) away (Liicke, Mey.). 
The narrator might easily from his point of view combine thus, 
and connect by καί, two events not precisely simultaneous, yet 
following one another in rapid succession. Perhaps we should 
prefer, with Bengel, the first of the two explanations given, as 491 
the one more in accordance with the character of this evangelist, 
and in fact established if the words διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν are 
genuine. In Acts xv. 16 the word ἀναστρέψω has nothing cor- 
responding to it either in the Sept. or in the Hebrew (Amos 
ix. 11); probably to the apostle as he makes the quotation it 
means, (to him) J will turn (myself) again (as also 3: in many 
passages of the O. T. must be taken so by itself, e.g. Jer. xii. 15 
oman as [will return —to them, antithetic to Jehovah’s turn- 
ing away from them — and have mercy on them; Sept. ἀναστρέψω 
καὶ ἐλεήσω avtovs), as iterum is already contained in the com- 
pounds ἀνοικοδομήσω, ἀνορθώσω. Likewise in Matt. xviii. 3 ἐὰν 
μὴ στραφῆτε καὶ γένησθε etc. and Acts vii. 42 ἔστρεψεν ὁ θεὸς 
καὶ παρέδωκε this verb appears independently : to turn i.e. accord- 
ing to the connection, respectively turn about, repent, and turn 
away. In Luke i. 68 the absolute construction of ἐπεσκέψατο (3p8) 438 
is obvious. The above passage from Rom. is more like the Latin “+4 
audet dicere; in which construction the idea of the first verb is me 
not conceived of as subordinate. Render: he makes bold and 
says; ἀποτολ. indicates the frame of mind, λέγειν its result, the 
utterance of the mental state in the bold saying. In Col. as above 
Paul probably means to say two things:? in spirit I am present 

1 Every discriminating reader will perceive that the constructions from Xen., Plaut., 


and Persius, which Kiihnél on Luke vi. 48 has adduced as analogous, are of a different 
nature. 


2In the quotation by Wetst. from Joseph. bell. ἃ. 3, 10, 2 the Codd. read χαίρω 
καὶ βλέπων or simply βλέπων. 


492 


+ 


439 
τὰ ed. 


418 
Gth ed. 


470 § 54, ADVERBS. 


with you, rejoicing (over you, σὺν ὑμῖν) and beholding your order 
etc. To the general statement is annexed one that is special. It 
is also possible that in βλέπων etc. the ground of the joy is sub- 
joined, and καί is to be rendered namely, that is. As, however, 
the rejoicing is something caused by βλέπειν, the adverbial notion 
expressed independently by a finite verb could in no event precede 
the principal notion;! nor could such a form of expression be 
supported, on careful consideration, by Hebrew analogy.2 Jas. 
iv. 2 φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε does not mean: ye envy even to the death 
(Schott), mortally,? but as Stolz renders it, ye kill and envy; see 
Kern in loc. In Rev. iii. 19 the two verbal notions can easily be 
taken each by itself. Others, even Ziillig, find here a hysteron- 
proteron ; Hengstenberg on the passage is right. 





Against the rendering of Mark x. 21 ἠγάπησεν αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ blande 
eum compellavit (also Schott), see Mey. in loc. 


6. As prepositions without a case are sometimes used as adverbs 
(see § 50, note 2, p. 423), so on the other hand, and still more 
frequently, adverbs (especially of place and time) are connected 
with cases: as ἅμα (even in Her. 6,118 ἅμα τῷ στρατῷ) which in 
later Greek became almost a preposition (ἅμα αὐτοῖς Matt. xiii. 29 
equivalent to σὺν αὐτοῖς, cf. Lucian. Asin. 41, 45; Polyb. 4, 48, 6 
etc. see Klotz, Devar. II. 97 sq.), ἕως of time and space (Klotz II. 
564, cf. ἕως τούτου --- for which the Greeks use ἄχρι; μέχρι; or in a 


1 Where the adverbial idea is promoted grammatically to an independence which 
does not logically belong to it, it can maintain such independence only by following 
the principal verb; cf. Plut. Cleom. 18 εἰςελθὼν καὶ βιασάμενος equivalent to Big εἰξελθών. 

2 The Hebrew verbs which when placed before other finite verbs are taken adverbially, 
express either an idea considered independently, as Job xix. 3 ye are not ashamed and 
ye deafen me, or a general idea which is more precisely defined by one more special, as : 
he made haste and ran to meet the Philistines ; he turned back and dug etc. In like manner 
1 Sam. ii. 3; which poetic passage, however, cannot be used in explaining the prose 
of the Ν, T. 

8 Gebser gains nothing by appealing to Jas. i. 11 and iii. 14 in support of this inter- 
pretation. Ini. 11 ἀνέτειλεν 6 ἥλιος ... καὶ ἐξήρανε expresses the rapid scorching of 
the herbage more aptly than ἀνατείλας ἐξήρανε, cf. veni vidi vici, not veniens vidi, or 
veni vidensque vici. To rise and to scorch is one act ; not, ‘after he is risen, he sets 
about storching.’ It is precisely by expressing each of the moments by a finite verb 
that their rapid succession is more graphically represented. The second passage, 
iii. 14 μὴ κατακαυχᾶσθε καὶ ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας, I render (and Wiesinger concurs 
with me) do riot glory and lie against the truth; κατὰ τῆς ad. belongs properly to κατα- 
καυχᾶσθαι (Rom. xi. 18). But the apostle to explain κατακ. thrusts in forthwith a 
stronger expression. By resolving it into μὴ κατακαυχώμενοι ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθ. 
we gain only the tautology κατὰ τ. GA. ψεύδεσθαι, while the κατά in katakavx. is wholly 
neglected. 


§ 54, ADVERBS. 411 


local sense ἕως εἰς, ἕως ἐπί; yet οἵ, Diod. S. 1, 27 ἕως ὠκεανοῦ), 
also with names of persons (even unto, to Luke iv. 42; Acts ix. 38; 
cf. Lament. iii. 89), χωρίς (Jno. xv. 5 separated from, μὴ μένοντες 
ἐν ἐμοί vs. 4, ef. Xen. C. 6,1, 7; Polyb. 8, 103, 8, then very fre- 
quently without and besides), πλησίον Jno. iv. 5 with Gen., as in 
Sept. cf. Xen. Mem. 1, 4,6; Aeschin. dial, 8,3 Gin Greek authors 
also with Dat.), but παραπλησίον Phil. ii. 27 with Dat. (with very 
slight variation of Codd.), ἐγγύς with Gen. Jno. iii. 23; vi. 19; 
xi. 18 etc. and with Dat. Acts ix. 38; xxvii. 8, ὀψέ with Gen. Matt. 
“xxviii. 1, ἔμπροσθεν with Gen., ὀπίσω (exclusively Hellenistic), 
ὄπισθεν with Gen., ὑπερέκεινα and ἔλαττον ditto, and also ἔσω and 
ἔξω with Gen. Several of these are so: frequently construed with 
a case, that they may be taken directly as prepositions; just as 
in ἕως, χωρίς, ἄχρι, μέχρι, the adverbial meaning is already per- 
ceptibly receding, and in ἄνευ (in the N.T.) has entirely disap- 493 
peared. 


Under this head comes also Phil. ii. 15 μέσον γενεᾶς σκολιᾶς (cf. Theophan. 
p- 530), which Lehm. and Tdf. have properly admitted into the text. But 
in Matt. xiv. 24 τὸ πλοῖον ἤδη μέσον τῆς θαλάσσης ἣν the word μέσον is an 
adjective: navis jam media maris erat, see Krebs in loc. In general, 
the use of adverbs with the Gen. in the Ν. Τὶ. diction appears very simple 
‘if we compare with it the far bolder constructions employed in the Greek 
of all periods, see Bhdy. 157 ἢ. 

Combinations such as ἕως ἄρτι, ἕως πότε, ἕως ὅτου, ἕως πρωΐ, ἕως ἔξω, ἕως 
κάτω and the like, are, indeed, especially common in later prose authors 
(in Sept. cf. ἕως τότε Neh. ii. 16, ἕως τίνος, ἕως οὗ Gen. xxvi. 13), but 
some such had already been sanctioned by earlier writers, Bhdy. 196; 
Krii. 266 f. As to adverbs with the article instead of nouns, see 
§ 18, 3 p. 109. 


7. Adverbs of place, even when not in relative clauses (§ 23, 2), 
are (originally by force of an attraction, Hm. Vig. 790, ad Soph. 
Antig.517; Wex, Antig. 1.107; Weber, Demosth. p. 446; Kriiger, 
grammat. Untersuchungen III. 306 ff.) interchanged by good 
prose writers ; particularly adverbs of rest are joined to verbs of 
motion when at the same time continuance in a place is to be 
expressed, Hm. as above, Bhdy. 850 (see above, on ἐν, ὃ 50, 4) 
ef. Matt. ii. 22 ἐφοβήθη ἐκεῖ ἀπελθεῖν, xvii. 20; xxviii. 16. So in 
the later writers ἐκεῖ came to be used freely for ἐκεῖσε, ποῦ and 
ὅπου for ποῖ and ὅποι, οὗ for whither. They are thus used in the 
Sept. and even in the N. T. (where e.g. ὅποι never occurs); as, 440 
Jno. xviii. 3 ὁ ᾿Ιούδας ... ἔρχεται ἐκεῖ μετὰ φανῶν καὶ λαμπάδων ἴὰ ὦ 


472 § 54, ADVERBS. 


419 (Arrian. Epict. 24, 113),! Rom. xv. 24 ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν προπεμφθῆναι 
th el. ἐκ εἴ (to Spain), Jno. vii. 35; iii. 8 (πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει), 
viii. 14; xi. 8; Luke xxiv. 28; Jas. iii. 4; Rev. xiv. 4, ete. This 
is an abuse easily to be explained in the language of conversation 
(in ὧδε and ἐνθάδε, ἐνταυθοῖ, the meanings hic and huc coalesced 
still earlier, Krii. 268), and which ought not to be denied in the 
written language of the N. T.? 
With respect to other adverbs of place, not only does ἔσω stand 
494 for within (évdov does not occur in the N. T.) Jno. xx. 26; Acts 
v. 23 (Ezek. ix.6; Lev. x. 18), but also ἐκεῖσε for ἐκεῖ Acts xxii. 5 
ἄξων καὶ τοὺς ἐκεῖσε ὄντας (see Wetst. in loc., cf. especially of 
ἐκεῖσε οἰκέοντες Hippocr. vict. san. 2, 2 p. 85, and the Index to 
Agathias, to Menander, and to Malal. ed. Bonn.). On the other 
hand, Acts xiv. 26 ὅθεν ἦσαν παραδεδομένοι τῇ χάριτι, as even 
Luther saw, is quite regular, cf. Mey. (and the emendation by 
Hemsterhuis, ἤεσαν, inadmissible in any case) ; and in Acts xxi. 3 
ἐκεῖσε retains its meaning, as does ποῦ in Luke xii. 17. The . 
adverbs ἔξωθεν, ἔσωθεν, κάτω, in prose usage, as is well known, 
represent both relations, from without and without, downwards 
and beneath, ete. 
Further, how the usage of the later prose writers keeps pace with 
that of the N. T. may be seen from the collections of Lob. Phryn. 
Ρ. 48 sq. 128; Thilo, Act. Thom. p.9. Cf. besides, Buttm. Philoct. 
p- 107; Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. p. 95 sqq.;% Schoem. Plutarch. 
Cleom. p. 186; Hartung, Casus S. 85 ff, also Kypke and Elsner 
ou Matt. 11. 22. 
That adverbs of place (relat.) are also used with reference to 
persons is well known, cf. Rey. ii. 13 παρ᾽ ὑμῖν, ὅπου ὁ σαταν. 


1 Her. 1, 121 ἐλθὼν ἐκεῖ plainly signifies : having arrived there (cf. the preceding 76% 
χαίρων ἐς Mépoas), and so might ἔρχεσθαι in Jno. xviii. 3 perhaps be rendered. Heb. 
Vi. 20 ὅπου πρόδρομος εἰςῆλθε may mean, where entered ; see Béhme, whom Bleek has not 
understood. 

* Many passages, to be sure, have been referred to this head which are of another 
sort, e.g. Matt. xxvi. 36; Luke xii. 17,18. Here ἐκεῖ and οὗ certainly mean: there, 
where. Not so Luke x. 1, where Hélemann’s translation ubi iter facere in animo erat is 
false because ἔρχεσθαι does not mean iter facere. Cf. Hm. Soph. Antig. p. 106. 

8 It is, indeed, not to be overlooked that forms such as ποῦ, ποῖ, also ἐκεῖ, ἐκεῖσε, 
might be easily exchanged by transcribers, as actually happens often in MSS. of Greek 
authors (Schaef. Eurip. Hec. 1062), Nevertheless, in the case of the N. T. the number 
of such variations noted is extremely small. Also corrections, as Acts xxii. 5 ἐκεῖ, 
very rarely occur, since the readers were too much accustomed to such use of these 
adverbs to take offence at it. Besides, the old (Homeric) language coincides with the 
later prose in the interchange of local adverbs, while Attic prose keeps the forms mor¢ 
distinct. 


§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 473 


κατοικεῖ Vechner, hellenol. p. 234. Besides, we find them used 
occasionally with’ a loose reference, Jno. xx. 19 τ. θυρῶν κεκλειυ- 
σμένων ὅπου ἦσαν οἱ μαθηταί there (of the chamber) where, Mark 
ii. 4; cf. Matt. ii. 9 (Krii. 268). 


¢55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. — 441 
Tth ed, 


1. The Greek language has, as is well known, two orders of 420 
negatives, ov, οὔτε, οὐκέτι (οὐδείς) etc., and μή, μήτε, μηκέτι (μηδείς) 
etc. The distinction between the two has been most fully unfolded 495 
by Hermann (ad Vig. p. 804 ff.; ef. Mtth. Il. 1437 ff; Mdv. 235 ff). 
Οὐ, for instance, is used when something is denied in plain terms 
and directly (as a matter of fact) ; μή, where something is denied 
as mere matter of thought (according to supposition, and under 
conditions): the former is the objective, the latter the subjective 
negation.! And this distinction is in substance observed also in 
the N. T. ;? as will be clear first of all, 


1 Cf. besides, Z. Richter, de usu et discrim. particul. οὐ et μή. Crossen, 1831-1834, 
8 Commentatt. 4to.; 2. Franke, de particulis negantib. linguae gr. Rintel. 1832-1833, 
2 Comment. 4to. (reviewed by Benfey, in n. Jahrb. f. Philol. XII. 147 ff.); Baumlein, in 
ἃ. Zeitschr. f. Alterthumswiss. 1847. nr. 97-99, and remarks, highly instructive on the 
general subject also, concerning particular uses of both forms of negation in Hm. Soph. 
Oed. R. 568; Ajac. 76; Philoct. 706; Eurip. Androm. 379; Elmsley, Eurip. Med. p. 155 
Lips.; Schaef. Demosth. I. 225, 465, 587, 591; II. 266, 327, 481, 492, 568; III. 288, 
299; IV. 258; V. 730; Stallb. Plat. Phaed. p. 43, 144. (The theory of Hermann is 
combated on the ground of Thiersch’s principles by Hartung, Lehre von den griech. 
Partik. 11. 73 ff., and he is followed by Rost, Gramm. 743; in the main, however, he 
at last agrees with Herm., and the doubt through which he was led to his views has 
been solved by Klotz, Devar. II. 666. G. F'. Gayler’s essay, particular. gr. sermonis 
negantium accurata disputatio, Tubing. 1836. 8vo., is an industrious collection of ex- 
amples, but is deficient in clearness.) On the difference between non and haud in Latin 
see Franke 1. 7 sq., the review in Hall. L. Z. 1834. no. 145, and Hand, Tursell. III. 16 ff. 
(who at the same time explains οὐ as the qualitative, μή as the modal negation). The 
comparison of the Heb. δὲς with μή (Ewald, 530) can be less perfectly carried through ; 
precisely in the more delicate relations the correspondence fails. 

2 That the N. T. authors observed almost invariably this in itself delicate difference, 
is due not to their theoretical knowledge, but to the sense of propriety they acquired by 
much intercourse with those who spoke Greek ; precisely as we also learn the some- 
times conventional difference between the synonyms of our mother tongue. In par- 
ticular instances, however, a foreigner might well be expected to err, since even 
Plutarch (Schaef. Demosth. III. 289; Plutarch. V.6, 142,475), Lucian (Schaef. Demosth. 
1. 529; Schoemann, Plutarch. Agis p. 93; Fritzsche, quaestion. Lucian. p. 44), Pausan. 
(Franke, I. 14), Aelian (Jacobs, Ael. anim. p. 187), ef. Mdv. 245; Mith. 1444, are said 
to have sometimes interchanged the two negatives. Cf. also on ὅτι μή for ὅτι οὐ Ellendt, 
praef. ad Arrian. I, 24sq. I would not, however, assert that in these passages gram- 
matical acuteness might not repeatedly be able to discover the reason for οὐ or μή; 

60 


474 § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


a. From the examination of a few passages in which the two neg: 
atives occur together. Jno. iii. 18 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται, 
442 ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται, ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν etc. (cf. Hm. as 
Τὰ οἱ, above 805) ; κρίνεσθαι is denied as matter of fact by οὐ, i.e. it is 
asserted that in fact a judgment does not take place. The second 
πιστεύων, however, is negatived by the particle μή merely as a 
496 supposed case, for ὁ μὴ πιστ. means, who (ever) does not believe, 
421 f one does not believe (ὁ οὐ πιστεύων would indicate a definite in- 
tthe. dividual who does not believe); hence follows also ὅτε μὴ πεπίστ.; 
since a case is merely supposed (quod non crediderit). This usage 
is not contradicted by 1 Jno. v. 10 ὁ μὴ πιστεύων τῷ θεῷ ψεύστην 
πεποίηκεν αὐτόν, OTL οὐ πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὴν μαρτυρίαν etc. ° Here 
the apostle in the last words passes suddenly from the mere 
supposition (ὁ μὴ mot.) to the matter of fact: the μὴ πιστεύειν 
had already begun, and John pictures to himself now an actual 
unbeliever. 

Mark xii. 14 ἔξεστι κῆνσον ... δοῦναι ἢ οὐ; δῶμεν, ἢ μὴ δῶμεν ; 
where, in the first instance, inquiry is made as to the objective 
reason for paying tribute ; in the second, a subjective principle is 
expressed: are (ought) we to give etc. Cf. Hm. Vig. 806, on 
Aristoph. Thesmoph. 19, and Stallb. Plat. rep. 11. 270. 

Eph. v. 15 βλέπετε πῶς ἀκριβῶς περιπατεῖτε, μὴ ὡς ἄσοφοι GAN 
ὡς σοφοί; the μὴ ὡς ἄσοφοι ete. is the direct explanation οἵ πῶς, and 
like that dependent on dré€mere,—hence the subjective negation. 

2 Cor. x. 14 οὐ γάρ, ὡς μὴ ἐφικνούμενοι εἰς ὑμᾶς, ὑπερεκτείνομεν 
ἑαυτούς we do not overstretch ourselves (objectively negatived), as 
though we had not reached to you, a mere supposition ; in point of 
fact it is not so. Of., on the other hand, 1 Cor. ix. 26. 

Rom. xi. 21 εἰ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τῶν κατὰ φύσιν κλάδων οὐκ ἐφείσατο, 
μήπως οὐδὲ σοῦ φείσεται if God spared not (matter of fact, he 
has in reality not spared them), so (it is to be feared) lest he also 
spare not thee. Here the apostle might have uttered the sentence 
categorically, so will he also not spare thee; but he prefers to give 
it a milder turn by using μήπως : lest perhaps οὐδὲ cod φείσεται 
become true; and every apprehension is subjective (Rev. ix. 4). 
Cf. Plat. Phaed. 76 b. φοβοῦμαι, μὴ αὔριον τηνικάδε οὐκέτι ἢ ἀνθρώ- 
πων οὐδεὶς ἀξίως οἷός τε τοῦτο ποιῆσαι, p. 84 Ὁ. οὐδὲν δεινόν, μὴ 
φοβηθῇ, ὅπως μὴ ... οὐδὲν ἔτει οὐδαμοῦ ἢ, Thuc. 2, 76; see 
Gayler pp. 427, 480. 
while we must never forget that sometimes there is no stringent reason in favor of οὐ 


or μή, but either negative may be used according to the author’s view of the case, Hm. 
Vig. 806. 


§55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 475 


1 Jno. v. 16 ἐάν τις ἔδῃ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντα ἁμαρτίαν 
μὴ πρὸς θάνατον ... πᾶσα ἀδικία ἁμαρτία ἐστὶ καὶ ἔστιν ἁμαρτία 
οὐ πρὸς θάνατον (in the former clause μή is used as following up 
a subjective observation and dependent on ἐὰν ἴδῃ, in the latter ov, 
since an objectively valid principle is asserted, an idea dogmatically 
real is laid down). 

Jno. vi. 64 εἰσὶν ἐξ ὑμῶν τινες, of οὐ πιστεύουσιν" ἤδει yap... ὁ 
Ἴησ.. τίνες εἰσὶν οἱ μὴ πιστεύοντες, the former clause conveying a 
matter of fact, the second a supposition, who they were that would 
not believe, qui essent, qui non crederent. Cf. besides Rom, v. 13 ; 497 
- Jno. y. 23; xiv. 24; xv.24; Actsiv.20; x.14; xxv.17f; 1 Jno. 
iv.8; v.12; 3Jno.10; 2 Thess. iii. 10; Gal.iv.8; 2 Cor. ii. 13 ; 443 
Heb. iv. 2,151 ai 

b. But the same result which these passages give follows also 422 
from those in which μή occurs alone: Matt. xxii. 25 μὴ ἔχων δ od. 
σπέρμα ἀφῆκε τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ, where μὴ ἔχων 
is used with reference to the law that made this provision (ἐάν τις 
ἀποθάνῃ μὴ ἔχων οἷο. vs. 24): not having, he left behind etc., as 
one not having in the sense of the law, he left etc. (οὐκ ἔχων would 
exhibit the not having as if narrating something purely a matter 
of fact) ; in Mark xii. 20 we find in the narrative form οὐκ ἀφῆκε 
σπέρμα. Col. i. 23 εἴγε ἐπιμένετε TH πίστει... καὶ μὴ μετακινού- 
μεῖῦοι ἀπὸ τῆς ἔλπτ.. Where the not being moved away (in ἃ proposi- 
tion beginning with eye) is put as ἃ condition, consequently as 
something only supposed. 2 Thess. i. 8 διδόντος ἐκδίκησιν τοῖς μὴ 
εἰδόσι θεὸν καὶ τοῖς μὴ ὑπακούουσι τῷ evayy.; the statement here 
is general: such as know not God, whoever they are, wherever 
such are to be found (consequently a supposition), ef. 11. 12, Rom. 
xiv, 21 καλὸν τὸ μὴ φαγεῖν κρέα (the not-eating as something sup- 
posed: if any one eat not; τὸ οὐ φαγεῖν would represent the not 


1 Passages from Greek authors in which od and μή appear together in the same main 
proposition, with more or less obvious difference, are e.g. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. 1, 3, 
68 ταῦτα οὐ κ ἀπολογουμένου ἦν, ἀλλὰ κακοῖς ἐπιπληροῦντος κακὰ καὶ μηκέτι μετρίως, 
ἀλλὰ ἄρδην ἐπισπωμένου τὰς ἀπορίας, 2,60 λεκτέον, ὧς εἰ μηδέν ἐστι ῥητορικῆς τέλος, 
οὐδέν ἐστι ῥητορική (2,107), 2,110; hypotyp. 3,1, 2; Lucian. catapl.15 ἐγὼ ἅτε μηδὲν 
ἔχων ἐνέχυρον ἐν τῷ βίῳ, οὐκ ἀγρόν, οὐ συνοικίαν, οὐ χρυσόν etc. Soph. Antig. 686 
οὔτ᾽ ἂν δυναίμην, wht’ ἐπισταίμην λέγειν, Philoct. 1048; Demosth. Callicl. 736 b. ; 
pac. 28 ἃ. ; Phorm. 604 a. ; Xen. C, 2, 4, 27; Aristot. polit. 6,8; rhet. 1,11, 31; 2, 2, 
and 15 ; Lucian. dial. mort. 16,2; adv. indoct. 5 ; Strabo 3, 138; 15, 712; Himer. oratt. 
23,18; Plutarch. Pompej. 23; apophth. p. 183f.; Aelian. anim. 5, 28; Joseph. Antt. 
16,9, 3. Cf. besides, Gayler p. 291. From the Fathers, ef. Origen ¢. Mare. p. 26 
Wetst. ; from the apocrypha, Acta apocr. p. 107. Particularly noteworthy is Agath. 
2, 23 ep ὅτῳ ἂν σώματι μὴ θᾶττον καταπταῖεν οἱ ὄρνεις ἢ of κύνες οὐ κ αὐτίκα ἐπιφοιτῶντες 
διασπαράξαιεν etc. 


f 


476 § 55, NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


eating as something objective, — an actually existing practice it 
may be). Rom. xv. 1 ὀφείλομεν δὲ ἡμεῖς... καὶ μὴ ἑαυτοῖς ἀρέσκειν 
(vs. 8 narratively: καὶ γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς οὐχ ἑαυτῷ ἤρεσεν). Hence, 
naturally, with the Optative when a mere wish is expressed (Franke 
I. 27), Mark xi. 14 μηκέτι ἐκ σοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα μηδεὶς καρπὸν 
φάγοι (yet some Codd. read here φάγῃ), 2 Tim. iv. 16; and in 
Imperative sentences, Rom. xiv. 1 τὸν ἀσθενοῦντα τῇ πίστει προς- 
498 λαμβάνεσθε, μὴ εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν (xii. 11); Phil. ii. 12, 
where some erroneously refer the words μὴ ὡς ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ etc. 

to ὑπηκούσατε, in which case ov would have been indispensable. 
Tn accordance with the difference above defined, μή in general 
will express the weaker (cf. also Hm. Philoct. 706), and ov, as 
categorical, the stronger negation. Nevertheless μή is also at times 
more emphatic than οὐ (Hm. Soph. Antig. 691), inasmuch as, if 
444 (even) the supposition is denied, more is expressed than if the 
ΤῊ οἱ, actual existence of a thing (as a fact) is denied. See under 
no. 5. In like manner is the Latin haud sometimes the stronger, 
sometimes the weaker negation, Franke I. 7; cf. Hand, Tursell. 


ΠῚ. 20. 


Where οὐ belongs to a single word (verb) to which in the language 
there is a negative directly antagonistic, it coalesces with that word and 
expresses this exactly contrary idea, as οὐκ ἐᾶν to prevent Acts xvi. 7; οὐ 

423 θέλειν nolle 1 Cor. x.1. See Franke I. 9 sq., cf. under no. 6. Οὐ combined 
6th ed. with nouns into one idea obliterates their meaning altogether: Rom. x. 19 
παραζηλώσω ὑμᾶς ἐπ᾽ οὐκ ἔθνει over a no-nation, ix. 25 καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαόν 
μου λαόν μου καὶ τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην ἠγαπημένην, 1 Pet. ii. 10 — (all quota- 
tions from O.T.); cf. Thuc. 1, 137 ἡ οὐ διάλυσις the not breaking (the 
bridge had not been broken), 5, 50 ἡ οὐκ ἐξουσία, Eurip. Hippol. 196 οὐκ 
ἀπόδειξις, see Monk in loc.; Sturz, ind. ad Dion. Cass’ p. 245; Fr. Rom. II. 
424. How this combination differs from that with μή (ἡ μὴ διάλυσις), see 
Franke, as above, I. 9. Numerous examples of both in Gayler p. 16 sqq. 

The simple, accented, οὔ no (Matt. v. 37; Jas. ν. 12; 2 Cor. i. 17 f.) 
occurs in answer to a question only in Matt. xiii. 29; Jno. 1. 21, (for 
instances from Greek writers, see Gayler p. 161); the fuller form οὐκ 
ἔγωγε would have been more usual. 


2. Let us consider now those cases, the most frequent of all, in 
which a negation is expressed by μή ; this takes place: 

a. In (wishes) commands, resolutions, encouragements, and 
that not only with verbs of the sort, that is to say Imperatives and 
Subjunctives, Matt. vii. 1 μὴ κρίνετε, Gal. v. 26 μὴ γινώμεθα κενό- 
δοξοι, 2 Thess. 111. 10, see ὃ 56, 1, but also with words which are 


§ 55, NEGATIVE PARTICLES. ATT 


considered as integral parts of the command, etc.,1 Pet. v. 2 
ποιμάνατε ... μὴ ἀναγκαστῶς, 1 Pet. i. 13 f.; 1 Tim. v. 9; Luke 
“vi. 85; 1 Cor. v. 8; Rom. xiii. 13; Phil. ii. 4,12; Heb. x. 25; 
Acts x. 20. ἐ 

b. In telic clauses, with ἵνα Matt. vii. 1; xvi. 20; Rom. xi. 2 ; 
Eph. ii. 9; Heb. xii. 3; Mark v. 43; 2 Cor. v. 15; vii. 9; Eph. 499 
iv. 14, or ὅπως Luke xvi. 26; 1 Cor. i. 29; Matt. vi. 18; Acts 
viii. 24; xx.16. So also with single words of such clauses, 
Rom. viii. 4; Eph. ii. 12 [2] ; Phil.i.27f.; iii. 9; 2 Thess. ii. 12 ; 
Heb. xii. 27. 

6. In conditional sentences (Hm. Vig. 805), with εἰ Jno. xv. 22 

εἰ μὴ ἦλθον, ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ εἴχοσαν, XVili. 80 εἰ μὴ ἣν οὗτος κακὸν 
ποιῶν, οὐκ ἄν σοι παρεδώκαμεν, Matt. xxiv. 22; Acts xxvi. 32; 
Rom. vii. 7; Jno. ix. 33, and with ἐάν Matt. v. 20; xii. 29; Rom. 
x. 15; 2 Tim. ii. 5, not only with reference to the whole proposi- 
tion, but also with single words which are considered as condi- 
tional, 1 Tim. v. 21; Tit. i. 6 εἴ τις ἐστὶν ἀνέγκλητος ... μὴ ἐν 
κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας, ii. 8; Jas. i. 4, 26. 

In all these cases the necessity of the subjective negation is 
clear ; for every condition, design, purpose, command, falls within 
the province of what is merely conceived of. 

In conditional sentences οὐ occurs not infrequently; in the N. T. 445 
pretty often, in the older writers with logical necessity only where ™ 
but a single word of the conditional sentence (hardly the verb 
merely Krii. 271) is negatived, so that the negation coalesces with 
this word into a single idea, Hm. Vig. 833; Eurip. Med. p. 844 ; 
Soph. Oed. C. 596 ; Schaef. Plut. IV. 8961; Mehlhorn, Anacr. 

Ρ. 139; Bremi, Lys. p. 111; Schoemann, 1586. p. 324 sq.; e.g. 424 ° 
Soph. Aj. 1131 εἰ τοὺς θανόντας οὐκ ἐᾷς θάπτειν if thou hinderest vehi 
(Iliad. 4, 55), Lys. Agor. 62 εἰ μὲν οὐ πολλοὶ (i.e. ὀλέγοι) ἦσαν, 
Thue. 3,55 εἰ ἀποστῆναι ᾿Αθηναίων οὐκ ἠθελήσαμεν, Her. 6, 9. 

Cf. Gayl. p. 99 sqq.; Mtth. 1440; Krii. 271. (On the analogous 
ὅπως οὐ see Held, Plut. Timol. 857.) According to this there is 
nothing strange in Matt. xxvi. 42; Luke xvi. 31; Jno. v. 47; 
Rom. viii. 9; 1 Cor. vii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 10,14; 1 Tim. iii. 5; v. 8; 
Rev. xx. 15, etc., and as little in 2 Cor. xii. 11 εἰ καὶ οὐδέν εἶμι. 

On the other hand, Lipsius (de modor. in N. T. usu Ρ. 26 sqq.) 
has adduced a number of other passages, which contradict the 


1 Schaef. Demosth. III. 288: οὐ poni licet, quando negatio refertur ad sequentem 
vocem cum eaque sic coalescit, unam ut ambae notionem efficiant ; μή ponitur, quando 
negatio pertinet ad particulam conditionalem. Cf. Rost, Gr. S. 745. 


478 § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES, 


above canon, or appear to do so; since, indeed, generally in the 

N.T. if not is expressed more frequently by εἰ οὐ than by εἰ μή, 

which latter phrase most commonly signifies except.1 We divide 
500 these passages into four clagses: 

a) Such as have nothing to do with the question : Luke xii. 26 
εἰ οὐδὲ ἐλάχιστον δύνασθε, Ti περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν μεριμνᾶτε ; for εἰ 
here is conditional only in appearance ; in reality it is equivalent 
to ἐπεί, Krii. 271. Translate 7f (as is clear from the alleged cases), 
i.e. since you cannot do even the least etc. (hence always θαυμάζω 
εἰ ov cf. Kiihner 11. 406). So also Rom. xi. 21; Jno. iii. 12; 
v. 47; x. 35; Heb. xii. 25; 2 Pet. ii. 4; ef. Soph. Oed. Col. 596 
εἰ θέλοντάς γ᾽ οὐδὲ σοὶ φεύγειν καλόν si, guum te volunt recipere, 
ne tibi quidem decorum est exsulem esse, and Aeschin. ep. 8 εἰ δὲ 
οὐδὲ σὺν ἐκείνῳ διέγνωκας ἐξιέναι etc., Sext. Empir. Math. 7, 434 
εἰ οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο Hoe etc. Xenoph. A. 7, 1,29; Aesop. 23, 2, see 
Bhdy. 386 ; Franke, Demosth. p. 202; Gayl. 118; Hm. Aeschyl. 
Il. 148. 

b) Such as, when viewed more closely, are in unison with the 
above canon: not only 1 Cor. xi. 6 εἰ yap οὐ κατακαλύπτεται γυνή, 
kal κειράσθω if a woman is unveiled, she ought also to be shorn, 
2 Thess. iii. 10, but also Jno. x. 87 εἰ οὐ ποιῶ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πατρός 
μου, μὴ πιστεύετέ μοι" εἰ δὲ ποιῶ, κἂν ἐμοὶ μὴ πιστεύητε, τοῖς ἔργοις 
πιστεύσατε if I omit the works of my Father (and thus withhold 
from you the proofs of my divine mission) ete. ; but if I do them 
etc., Jno. iii. 12; Rom. viii. 9; Rev. xx. 15; ef. Lys. accus. Agor. 

446 76 ἐὰν μὲν οὖν φάσκῃ Φρύνιχον ἀποκτεῖναι, τούτων μέμνησθε ... ἐὰν 
Τὰ οἱ δ᾽ οὐ φάσκῃ, ἔρεσθε αὐτόν etc. but if he denies it, Sext. Empir. 
Math. 2, 111 εἰ μὲν λήμματά τινα ἔχει ... εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἔχει etc. but if 
he is destitute of them, 9, 176 εἰ μὲν οὐκ ἔχει, φαῦλόν ἐστι τὸ θεῖον 

. εἰ δὲ ἔχει, ἔσται τι τοῦ θεοῦ κρεῖττον, hypotyp. 2, 5. 100. 175 ; 
Lucian. paras. 12; Galen. temper. 1,38; Mr. Anton. 11, 18 p. 198 
Mor. (cf. also Euseb. de die dom. p. 9 Jani). Nor is there any- 
thing to object against 1 Cor. xv. 13: εἰ ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ 
ἔστι if the resurrection of the dead is a chimera, ete. ; cf. in the 
preceding context πῶς λέγουσί τινες ὅτι ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν; 
On vs. 10 cf. Philostr. Apoll. 4, 16, p. 154. 

0) Cases in which the proposition with εἰ οὐ merely negatives 

425 the idea which is expressed affirmatively in a corresponding propo- 
δὶ οὐ, sition, without the od coalescing with the negatived word into a 


1 εἰ οὐ and εἰ μή are well distinguished in a single sentence in Acta Thom. p. 57 ed. 
Thilo. 


§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 479 


single opposed idea: 1 Cor. ix. 2 εἰ ἄλλοις οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος, 
ἀλλάγε ὑμῖν εἰμι, si aliis non sum apostolus, vobis certe sum. Luke 
xi. 8, cf. xviii. 4. But even in such oppositions later writers use 
εἰ ov, e.g. Sext. Empir. Math: 11, 5 εἰ μὲν ἀγαθόν ἐστιν, ἕν τῶν τριῶν 
γενήσεται, εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀγαθόν, ἤτοι κακόν ἐστιν, ἢ οὔτε κακόν 
ἐστιν οὔτε ἀγαθόν ἐστιν, Diog. L. 2, 86 εἰ μὲν γάρ τι τῶν προςόντων 
λέξειαν, διορθώσονται, εἰ δ᾽ οὔ, οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, where the sense is 
not: if, however, they be silent about it, but, if they do noé say 
something useful,! cf. Judg. ix. 20; Judith v. 21; Demosth. epp. 
p- 125 ἃ. ; Basilic. II. 525, and Poppo Xen. Anab. p. 358. 

d) Cases in which οὐ likewise antithetically denies, without, 
however, an express affirmative proposition preceding: Jas. 11. 11 
εἰ ov μοιχεύσεις (with reference to the preceding μὴ povyevons), 
φονεύσεις δέ, γέγονας παραβάτης νόμου Uf thou dost not commit adul- 
tery, yet if thou killest,? i. 23; 111. 2; 1 Cor. xvi. 22 εἴ τις οὐ φιλεῖ 
τὸν κύριον, ἤτω ἀνάθεμα (where the rendering, 7f any one hateth 
the Lord, would probably not represent the apostle’s meaning) ; 
2 Jno. 10 εἴ τις ἔρχεται πρὸς ὑμᾶς Kal ταύτην τὴν διδαχὴν οὐ φέρει, 
Luke xiv. 26. : 

For the later prose writers, then, who in general use εἰ οὐ (as 
the stronger and more expressive form) much oftener than the 
older writers (who were rather frugal in its use), we may state the 
rule thus (cf. also Anton, Progr. de discrim. particul. od et μή, 
Gorlic. 1823, 4to. p. 9): where πού in a conditional proposition is 
emphatic,’ εἰ οὐ (as in Latin si non) is used; but where 7 not 


501 


stands without emphasis on the negation, εἰ μή (as in Latin nist): 447 
e.g. if thou dost πού commit adultery (with reference to the pre- Τὰ οἱ 


ceding μὴ povy.), if any man loveth not the Lord (as he ought), 
if I am not an apostle unto others, Jno. i. 25 if thou art not the 
Christ, cf. vs. 20. The emphasis is brought out by an antithesis, 
either open (1 Cor. ix. 2) + or concealed (1 Cor. xvi. 22). It lies, 
however, in the nature of the case that od then negatives only a 
part of the conditional proposition, not the proposition itself. 


1 Macar. homil. 1,10. Cf. also ἐάν Diog. L. 1, 105 ἐὰν νέος ὧν τὸν οἶνον οὐ φέρῃς, 
γέρων γενόμενος ὕδωρ ofcers. 

2 Equivalent to εἰ οὐ μοιχεύων ἔσῃ, φονεύων δέ, cf. Arrian. Epict. 1, 29, 35; 2,11, 22. 
On the contrary, Thuc. 1, 32 εἰ μὴ μετὰ κακίας, δόξης δὲ μᾶλλον ἁμαρτίᾳ... ἐναντία 
τολμῶμεν. 

8 Mehlhorn, as above, gives the rule: ubi simpliciter negatio affirmationi ita opponatur, 
ut negandi part. voce sit acuenda, semper od poni, ubi contra verbum voce inprimis, 
notandum μή esse debere. Cf. also Poppo on Xen. Anab. as above. 

* Cf. also e.g. Aesop. 7, 4 εἰ οὐ σοὶ τοῦτο mposépeper, οὐκ by ἡμῖν αὐτὸ συνεβούλευες 
if it were not useful to thee, thou wouldst not advise us to it. 


480 §55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


Ὥςτε (Krii. p. 272 f.) of a consequence even when represented as mere 
matter of fact is used in the N. T. always with μή and the Infinitive, Matt. 
viii. 28; Mark i. 45; ii. 2; iii. 20; 1 Cor. i. 7; 1 Thess. i. 8. Only in 
2 Cor. iii. 7 is there a logical ground for it in the conditional proposition ; 
Engelhardt, Plat. apol. p. 219. 


426 After ὅτι and ἐπεί because (in direct discourse) οὐ follows regularly, Jno. 
6th el. viii. 20, 37; Rom. xi. 6; Luke i. 34; Biumlein S. 773; ὅτι μή in con- 
502 ditional discourse occurs in Jno. iii. 18. On the contrary, we have in Heb. 


ix. 17, in direct discourse, διαθήκη ἐπὶ νεκροῖς βεβαία, ἐπεὶ μήποτε ἰσχύει, 
ὅτε ζῇ 6 διαθέμενος, which Béhme explains thus: μήποτε seems here to 
negative even the idea of ἰσχύειν ; consequently in general to deny more 
strongly than οὔποτε. Yet Bohme’s rendering of μήποτε by nondum is 
erroneous ; it means, never, never at all (Heliod. 2,19). And perhaps 
the author gave the preference to μήποτε on this account also, because he 
is speaking in general terms and not of any particular testament. How- 
ever, in later authors the subjective negation frequently occurs in connection 
with ἐπεί (ὅτι) guandoquidem, not only where something is clearly desig- 
nated as a subjective reason (as is perceptible even in Aelian. 12, 63; cf. 
besides, Philostr. Apoll. 7, 16; Lucian. Hermot. 47), but also where an 
objectively valid reason is assigned (Gayl. 183 sqq.; Mdv. p. 245; on 
Lucian and Arrian in particular, Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. praefat. p. 23 sqq., 
cf. also Ptol. geogr. 8, 1, 3), in so far as the reason falls back at last on a 
supposition. Others (Bengel, Lchm.) take μήποτε in Heb., as above, as 
an interrogative, as indeed ἐπεί often introduces a question, Rom. iii. 6 ; 
1 Cor. xiv. 16; xv. 29; Klotz, Devar. p.543. This seems to me, however, 
to be too rhetorical for the style. 

8. e. In relative clauses with ἄν (ἐάν), Luke viii. 18 ὃς ἂν μὴ ἔχῃ, 
Acts iii. 23 (Sept.) πᾶσα ψυχή, ἥτις ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσῃ, Rey. xiii. 15 
ὅσοι ἂν μὴ προςκυνήσωσιν, Luke ix. 5. In all these cases nothing 


- is denied as a matter of fact of particular subjects, but the lan- 


guage is only conditional and supposed: whoever hath not (may 
not have). Relative clauses without ἄν have regularly ov, Jno. 
iv. 22 προςκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε, Luke xiv. 27 ὅςτις οὐ βαστάξει, 
Rom. x. 14: 1 Cor. v. 1; 2 Cor. viii. 10; 1 Jno. iv. 6, etc., so far 
forth as they deny something as matter of fact ; on the other hand, 


448 μή occurs sometimes in such cases when the negation refers only 


Tth ed. 


to a supposition (assumption, condition) (Hm. Vig. 805; Kri. 
271), 2 Pet.i.9 ᾧ μὴ πάρεστι ταῦτα, τυφλός ἐστιν whoso lacketh, 
if any man lack, ete. In1 Tim. v. 18; Tit. i. 11 τὰ μὴ δέοντα 
and ἃ μὴ δεῖ (cf. Rom. i. 28; Soph. Phil. 583) express merely a 
moral conception: quae, st quae non sunt honesta; whereas ἃ 
οὐ δεῖ would denote positively inhonesta, the kind of unseemly 
things objectively present, cf. Gayl. 2401, In Col. ii. 18 μή before 


§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 481 


ἑώρακεν 1 is expunged by the more recent critics; only Tisch. in 
the 2d [and 7th] Leipzig ed. restores it, and undoubtedly it has 503 
the greatest amount of external authority on its side (Mey. states 
the authorities imperfectly). If the negation [which is wanting, 
moreover, in Cod. Sin.*] be genuine (some authorities have ov), 
μή must be used because even the relative clause is viewed by 427 
Paul subjectively, as μηδεὶς ὑμ. καταβραβευέτω.3 6th εἰ, 


Frequently ὅς is followed by οὐ, where, since apparently a mere sup- 
position is uttered, some have expected μή (Lipsius de modis p. 14), as in 
Matt. xxiv. 2 οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ ὧδε λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον, ὃς οὐ καταλυθήσεται (but 
here μή is not indispensable, inasmuch as the words deny a matter of fact) ; 
and also where in Latin the Subjunctive would stand, and therefore μή 
would have been expected, Matt. x. 26 οὐδέν ἐστι κεκαλυμμένον, ὃ οὐκ 
ἀποκαλυφθήσεται, Luke viii. 17; xii. 2; Matt. xxiv. 2; cf. 1 Kings viii. 46. 
For instances from Greek authors (Hm. Vig. p. 709) see Eur. Hel. 509 sq. 
ἀνὴρ yap οὐδεὶς ὧδε... 85... οὐ δώσει βοράν, Lucian. sacrif. 1 οὐκ οἶδα, 
εἴ τις οὕτω κατηφής ἐστι, ὅςτις οὐ γελάσεται, Soph. Oed. R. 374 οὐδεὶς ὃς 
οὐχὶ τῶνδ᾽ ὀνειδιεῖ τάχα. In 41] these cases the relative clause is considered 
as a definite, objective predicate, as if it were said ἀνὴρ οὐδεὶς ὧδε οὐ δώσει 
βοράν; even in construction with the Optative, Isocr. Evagor. p. 452 οὐκ 
ἔστιν, ὅςτις οὐκ ἂν Aiaxidos προκρίνειεν, also p. 199; Plut. apophth. p. 196 c. 
Closely allied to this is the phrase ris ἐστιν, ds οὐ followed by the Pres. 
indic. Acts xix. 35; Heb. xii. 7; cf. Dion. comp. 11 ed. Schaef. p. 120, 
which in sense is equivalent to οὐδείς ἐστιν, ὃς οὐ (for which Strabo 6, 286 
has οὐδὲν μέρος αὐτῆς ἐστιν, ὃ wy... τυγχάνει) ; on the other hand, οὐδείς 
ἐστιν, ὃς οὐ with the Preterite, is beyond the range of those cases in which 
one would expect μή, Xen. An. 4, 5, 31; Thuc. 3, 81; Lucian. Tox. 22; 
asin. 49; cf. Heind. Plat. Phaed. p. 233; Weber, Demosth. 356 sq. See 
also Gayl. p. 257 sqq., who, it must be confessed, has not discriminated 
sufficiently. 


4, f. With Infinitives (Mtth. 1442; Krii. 273), not only such as 
depend on a verb of thinking, speaking, commanding, wishing (of 449 
course also in the construction of the Accusative with the Infini- the. 
tive) Matt. ii. 12; v. 34, 839; Luke ii. 26; v.14; xx. 7; xxi.14; 
Acts iv. 17 f. 203: vi 28 5°xs'28's"xv. 19,38: xix: 31's; xxi. 4; 
xxiii. 8; xxvii.21; Rom. ii. 21f; xii.3; xiii.3; 1 Cor. v. 9,11; 


1 Cf. Philostr. Apoll. 7, 27 διελέγετο ἃ μὴ ἐκείνῳ προὔβαινε quae illi haud prodessent. 
From the Sept. may be adduced Exod. ix. 21 ὃς μὴ mposéoxe τῇ διανοίᾳ cis τὸ ῥῆμα 
κυρίου in opposition to 6 φοβούμενος τὸ ῥῆμα κυρίου vs. 20; thus just like εἰ δὲ μή in 
antithesis. Od and μή after relat. in parallel propositions, see Arrian. Epict. 2, 2, 4. 

2 In propositions with particles of time (Gayler, p. 185 sqq.) μή does not happen to 
occur in the N. T. ; several times οὐ is quite regularly joined to the Indicative of time, 
Jno. ix. 4; xvi, 25; 2 Tim. iv. 3; Acts xxii. 11. 

61 


482 §55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


2 Cor. ii. 1; x. 2; Heb. ix. 8, etc., or by which a design is ex- 
pressed 2 Cor. iv. 4 ἐτύφλωσε τὰ νοήματα... eis TO μὴ αὐγάσαι, 
1 Thess. ii. 9 ἐργαζόμενοι πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἐπιβαρῆσαι, Acts xx. 27 οὐχ 
504 ὑπεστειλάμην τοῦ μὴ ἀναγγεῖλαι, 1 Pet. iv. 2,— but also where the 
Infinitive is the subject of a proposition, 2 Pet. ii. 21 κρεῖττον ἣν 
αὐτοῖς μὴ ἐπεγνωκέναι, Luke xvii. 1, or, being joined to a prepo- 
sition, is resolvable into a finite verb with οὐ, Jas. iv. 2 οὐκ ἔχετε 
διὰ τὸ μὴ αἰτεῖσθαι ὑμᾶς (ὅτι οὐκ αἰτεῖσθε ὑμεῖς), Luke viii. 6; 
Acts xxviii. 18; Heb. x. 2. But in that first case ἐπεγνωκ. is 
denied only as a supposition (in fact they had known), and in the 
second the cause is represented not objectively, but as primarily 
the thought of the speaker. Precedents from the classics for all 
428 this, see in Gayler 294 sqq.; cf. Rost 750; Baumlein nr. 99, S. 
Shel. 788 f, Also those parts of speech which belong essentially to the 
Infinitive clause are negatived by μή, e.g. 2 Cor. x. 2. 
The cases in the Infinitive construction in which ov is, and can 
or must be, used have been pointed out by Rost 747 f.; Krii. 274; 
Biumlein 8.778. In Jno. xxi. 25 ἐὰν γράφηται καθ᾽ ἕν, οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸν 
οἶμαι τὸν κόσμον χωρῆσαι τὰ γραφ. βιβλία the negation belongs to 
οἶμαι, cf. Xen. M. 2, 2, 10 ἐγὼ μὲν οἶμαι, εἰ τοιαύτην μὴ δύνασαι 
φέρειν μητέρα, ἀγαθά σε οὐ δύνασθαι φέρειν. In Heb. vii. 11 τίς 
ἔτι χρεία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδ. ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα καὶ 
οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν ᾿Ααρὼν λέγεσθαι the negation does not belong 
to the Infinitive, but negatives the words κατὰ τ. τάξ. ᾽Ααρ. Οὐ 
is often in dependent clauses joined thus to a single word, Krii. 
S. 270. 


When after a verb of understanding or saying, in direct discourse ete., 
the assertion, observation etc. is expressed in a clause with ὅτι, the negation 
is made by ov, Luke xiv. 24 λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀνδρῶν ... γεύσεται 
τοῦ δείπνου, xviii. 29; Jno. v. 42 ἔγνωκα ὑμᾶς ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ 
ἔχετε ete., viii. 55; Acts ii. 31 etc. The proposition with ὅτι stands here 
as a pure objective proposition just as in indirect question (§ 41, 4), as if 
it were οὐδεὶς ... γεύσεται, τοῦτο ὑμῖν λέγω, while the Infinitive construction 
brings it into immediate connection with, and consequently dependence 
on, λέγω, ὁρῶ ete. Cf. Krii. 253, 270; Mdv. 235. 


5. g. With Participles (Gayl. 274 sqq.; Krii. 274 f.) μή is used 
not only when they belong to a proposition which, as expressing 
command, design, condition, ete., requires the subjective negation 
(see no. 2), Eph. v. 27; Phil. i. 28; ii. 4; 111. 9; 2 Thess. ii. 12; 
Heb. vi. 1; Jas.i. 5; Tit. ii. 9f.; Rom. viii.4; xiv. 3; Matt. 
xxii. 24; Acts xv. 88; Luke iii. 11; 2 Cor. xii. 21; cf. Soph. Oed. 


§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 483 


Ὁ. 1155, 980; Plato, rep. 2,370 6. ; Xen. Cyr. 1,4, 26; Krii. 275, 450 

— but also under other circumstances : Τὰ ed, 
a. when they refer, not to particular persons, but to a supposed 505 

genus: Matt. xii. 80 ὁ μὴ dv per ἐμοῦ κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστίν he who is 

not with me i.e. whoever belongs to this class of men that I have 

in mind, st quis non stet a meis partibus, Hm. Vig. 805; Mtth. 

1441 sq.; Krai. 174 (ὁ οὐκ dv per ἐμοῦ would mean a particular 

individual who actually was not with him), Matt. xxv. 29; Luke vi. 

49; Jno. x.1; xii. 48; χχ. 24 [7]; Rom. iv. 5; xiv. 22; Jas. ii. 13; 

iv. 17; 1 Jno. ii. 4; 1 Cor. vii. 37; hence with was Matt. xiii. 19; 

Jno. xv.2. Also 2 Jno. 7 πολλοὶ πλάνοι εἰςῆλθον εἰς τὸν κόσμον οἱ 

μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες ᾿Ιησοῦν Xp. ete. belongs here; the words do not 

mean many deceivers — namely, those who do not confess (οἱ οὐχ 

ὁμολ.)) — but, many deceivers, all those who do not confess, quicun- 

que non profitentur. 

8. when they apply to particular persons indeed, but ascribe to 
them a quality only conditionally or in thought: Luke xi. 24 
ὅταν ... ἐξέλθῃ ... διέρχεται 80 ἀνύδρων τόπων ζητοῦν ἀνάπαυσιν, 
καὶ μὴ εὑρίσκον λέγει if he finds it not, in case he does not etc., Rom. 

ii. 14; Gal. vi. 9 θερίσομεν μὴ ἐκλυόμενοι, Luke xii. 47 ἐκεῖνος ὁ 
δοῦλος (vs. 45 f.) ὁ μὴ ἑτοιμάσας μηδὲ ποιήσας πρὸς τὸ θέλημα δαρή- 499 
σεται (this is propounded as one of two possible cases); 1 Cor, δὲ αἱ, 
x. 83 πάντα πᾶσιν ἀρέσκω, μὴ ζητῶν τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ συμφέρον I seek to 
please all, (supposition) as one who, inasmuch as I οἵο., ix. 21; 

2 Cor. vi. 8; Rom. xv. 23; 1 Thess. iii. 1, 5 (against Riickert see 
Liinemann in loc.) ; Jno. vii. 15 πῶς οὗτος γράμματα οἷδε μὴ 
μεμαθηκώς ; since he can’t have learned (since we, surely, know 
him to be such a one as has never learned? ef. Philostr. Apoll. 

3, 22 ὃς καὶ γράφει μὴ μαθὼν γράμματα). Luke vii. 83 ἐλήλυθεν 
᾿Ιωάννης μήτε ἐσθίων ἄρτον μήτε πίνων οἶνον without having eaten ... 
drunken (spoken from the position of those who, observing this, 
are introduced as saying so); οὔτε ἐσθίων οὔτε πίνων would express 

the predicates as pure matters of fact. In Luke iv. 35 τὸ δαιμόνιον 
ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ μηδὲν βλάψαν αὐτόν, by the last words the author 
does not mean to relate a mere matter of fact (οὐδὲν Pray. αὐτόν 
and did not harm him), but to exclude merely the thought that 

the evil spirit had in any way injured the possessed: he had not 

(as one might perhaps have thought) injured him. 

Thus μή 15 very often to be understood: Acts v. 7; xx. 22; 
Heb. iv. 15; xi. 8; Matt. xxii. 12. Cf. what Klotz says, Devar. 

p- 666: quibus in locis omnibus propterea μή positum est, non ov, 


484 § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


quod ille, qui loquitur, non rem ipsam spectat sed potius cogita- 
tionem rei, quam vult ex animo audientis amovere (Plut. Pompe}. 
506 c. 64); Hm. Vig. 806. In Matt. xviii. 25 μὴ ἔχοντος αὐτοῦ ἀπο- 
δοῦναι ἐκέλευσεν αὐτὸν ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ πραθῆναι ete. the first words 
express ἃ fact, indeed, as he had not; but in this construction they 
451 are put in close relation with ἐκέλ. : he commanded, because that 
Τὰ οἱ, man had not, because he knew that the man had not, ete. So 
also Acts xxi. 34; Luke ii, 45; xxiv. 23; Acts ix. 26; xiii. 28; 
xvii.6; xxvii. 7, 20; 1 Pet. iv. 4; 2 Pet. iii. 9; cf. Plut. Pompe}. 
c. 23 and Alex. 51; Polyb. 17,7, 5; 5,30,5. On Rom. ix. 11 see 
Fr. Acts xx. 29 οἶδα ὅτι εἰσελεύσονται ... λύκοι βαρεῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς, 
μὴ φειδόμενοι τοῦ ποιμνίου is, as the Future shows, to be taken 
altogether as an ideal picture. Also Heb. ix. 9 μὴ δυνάμεναι κατὰ 
συνείδησιν τελειῶσαι etc. is spoken in the view of the writer; had 
it been οὐ δυνάμ. an actual inherent property would have been 
signified (not being able), but such offerings Israelites would not 
have presented. 1 Cor. i. 28 ἐξελέξατο ὁ θεὸς τὰ μὴ ὄντα, ἵνα τὰ 
ὄντα καταργήσῃ, Where τὼ οὐκ ὄντα would signify (Hm. Vig. 889) 
the non-existing (as a single negative idea), but τὰ μὴ ὄντα must 
mean which were reckoned as things that did not exist; the ὄντα is 
negatived as a supposition, not spoken actually of nonentities1 In 
2 Cor. iv. 18 (even in the second proposition, which is categorical) 
to τὰ βλεπόμενα stands opposed τὰ μὴ βλεπ., not τὰ οὐ βλεπ. 
(Heb. xi. 1). This last would denote what actually is not seen 
4 (τὰ ἀόρατα), but τὰ μὴ βλεπ. expresses, in conjunction with μὴ 
σκοπούντων ἡμῶν, the ulgoctane view of the believer, cf. Heb. xi. 7. 
Also in 2 Cor. v. 21 τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν 
ἐποίησε, the μὴ. yv. carries us back to the conception of him who 
makes him ἁμαρτία ; τὸν ov γνόντα would be objective and equiva- 
lent to τὸν ἀγνοοῦντα,2 Isae. 1,11 and Schoem.inloc. 2 Cor. vi. 3 
does not read οὐδεμίαν ἐν οὐδενὶ διδόντες προςκοπήν, because this 
would exhibit merely an actually existing characteristic, but 
μηδεμίαν ἐν μηδενὶ διδ. mp. because the characteristic is regarded, 
in connection with παρακαλοῦμεν vs. 1, as subjectively adhered 
to and continually striven after. Of. besides, Luke vii. 30; Jno. 
vii. 49; 1 Cor. ix. 20f. So with ὡς in subjective speech, 1 Cor. 
iv. 7 τί καυχᾶσαι ὡς μὴ λαβών; iv. 18; vii.29; 2 Cor.x.14; 1 Pet. 
ii. 16; Gayler 278 sq. (otherwise 1 Cor. ix. 26, see below). 


1 Μὴ ὄντα and οὐκ ὄντα are united in Xen. An. 4, 4, 15. 

2 The remark of Riickert on this passage, that in Greek od never stands between the 
article and participle but always μή, is wholly empirical, and false besides, and has been 
properly refuted by Jey. 


§ 55, NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 485 


On the other hand, od with participles (and adjectives) -— with 
which it occurs far less frequently — negatives actually and with- 
out qualification (Gayl. 287 sq.; Mtth. 1442), and hence stands 
‘ especially with predicates which are denied of definite persons :? 
Phil. iii. 3 ἡμεῖς ἐσμὲν ἡ περιτομή, οἱ πνεύματι θεῷ λατρεύοντες ... 452 
καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες (the ἡμεῖς, since they actually are re that 
πνεύμ. θεῷ Aatp., are denied to be ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες) ; 1 Pet. 

ii. 10 ὑμεῖς... of οὐκ ἐλεημένοι, viv δὲ ἐλεηθέντες, Rom. ix. 25 
(LXX.); Heb. xi. 35 ἔλαβον γυναῖκες ... ἄλλοι δὲ ἐτυμπανίσθησαν 
οὐ προςδεξάμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν (not accepting, 1.6. disdaining) ; 
Col. ii. 19 εἰκῆ φυσιούμενος ... καὶ οὐ κρατῶν, although the sen- 
tence is imperative (vs. 18 μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω and ἃ μὴ 
ἑώρακεν etc.), yet with ov κρατ. the apostle passes over to a pred- 
icate actually existing, Acts xvii. 27; Luke vi. 42; 1 Cor. ix. 26 
ἐγὼ οὕτω πυκτεύω, ὡς οὐκ ἀέρα δέρων (οὐκ ἀέρα dép. a concrete 
predicate which Paul attributes to himself, ὡς is qualitative; ὡς μὴ 
a. δ. would be as if I would not beat the air), Gal. iv. 27 (LXX) 
εὐφράνθητι στεῖρα ἡ ov τίκτουσα etc. thou that bearest not! of a 
historic person; see besides 1 Cor. iv. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 8f.; Acts 
xxvi. 22; xxvill. 17; Heb. xi. 1, (adjectives with οὐ Rom. viii. 20; 
Heb. ix. 11); cf. Xen. Cyr. 8, 8, 6; Her. 9, 83; Plato, Phaed. 
80 6. ; Demosth. Zenothem. p. 576b.; Strabo 17, 796 and 822; 

Diod. 8. 19, 97; Philostr. Apol. 7, 32 ; Aelian. 10, 11; Lucian. 
Philops. 5; peregr. 34. 

In 1 Pet. i. 8 both the negatives are used together: dv οὐκ 
εἰδότες ἀγαπᾶτε, els ὃν ἄρτι μὴ ὁρῶντες πιστεύοντες δὲ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε 
etc.; the οὐκ eid. expresses the negative idea (personally) un- 
known as a matter of fact; the μὴ 6p. means, although ye see not, 
referring to the conception of the persons addressed: believing, 
ye rejoice in him, and the thought that ye see him not does not 
restrain you from rejoicing. (In like manner οὐ and μή are con- 
strued with participles in one and the same sentence in Lucian. 
indoct. 5 καὶ ὁ κυβερνᾶν οὐκ εἰδὼς καὶ ἱππεύειν μὴ μεμελετηκώς 
etc., οὗ, also Lycurg. 11, 9 and Blume in loc.). In Rom. i. 28 481 
we find παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς eis ἀδόκιμον νοῦν, ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ ὌΝ 
καθήκοντα, but ἴῃ Eph. ν. 3f. πορνεία καὶ πᾶσα ἀκαθαρσία... 


1 The difference between οὐ and μή with participles is well illustrated by Plat. Phaed. 
63 b. ἠδίκουν ἂν ob ἀγανακτῶν injuste facerem ego, qui non indignor; on the other 
hand, ἠδ. ἂν μὴ ἄγαν. (according to Olympiod.) injuste facerem si non indignarer. 
Cf. also Joseph. antt. 16, 7,56 δὲ Φερώρας εἰς μέσον ἀπείληπτο, μηδὲν εὔσχημον εἰς 
ἀπολογίαν ἔχων ... ἀκοῦσαι δ᾽ οὗ πιστευόμενος. 


486 §55,. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


μηδὲ ὀνομαζέσθω ἐν ὑμῖν ... ἢ εὐτραπελία, τὰ οὐκ ἀνήκοντα. The 
latter (in apposition) is to be resolved, which are wnseemly 
things (which a Christian is bound to shun), actions which are not 
seemly (as indeed some Codd. [so too Cod. Sin.] have: ἃ οὐκ. 
ἀνῆκεν). Gal. iv. 8 τότε οὐκ εἰδότες θεὸν ἐδουλεύσατε etc. is a 
glance at a past historic fact, and οὐκ εἰδ. form a@ single idea: 
ignorantes deum, ἄθεοι; on the contrary, 1 Thess. iv. 5 τὰ ἔθνη 
508 τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν θεόν, and 2 Thess. i. 8 τοῖς μὴ εἰδόσι θεόν, in 
dependent construction. . 


Sometimes, however, μή would appear to stand for οὐ, but Rom. iv. 19 
καὶ μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῇ πίστει οὐ κατενόησε τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα etc. means, he 
regarded not his body, quippe qui non esset imbecillis ; κατενόησε expresses 
a fact, but the being weak in faith only a supposition, which is to be denied 
(οὐκ ἀσθενήσας would mean, strong in faith). According to another con- 
struction, it might, indeed, also have run thus: οὐκ ἠσθένησεν .... ὥςτε 

453 κατανοῆσαι etc., cf. Plut. reg. apophth. p. 81 Tauchn. On the other hand, 

Τὰ οἱ, Heb. vii. 6 ὁ δὲ μὴ γενεαλογούμενος ἐξ αὐτῶν δεδεκάτωκε τὸν ᾿Αβραάμ, is 
probably to be explained on the principle, that in antitheses (cf. vs. 5), 
where a peculiarly strong negation is intended (and the negative is ac- 
cented), the Greeks use μή (by which even the supposition is denied). 
See above, no. 1 and Hm. Soph. Antig. 691, which will be quoted presently. 
In Luke i. 20 ἔσῃ σιωπῶν καὶ μὴ δυνάμενος λαλῆσαι the subjective negation 
is so much the more fitting, as a particular condition is designated as but 
just announced, and consequently existing but in thought (ἔσῃ). So also 
Acts xiii. 11. The connection of the subjective and objective negatives 
appears strangest in Acts ix. 9 ἦν ἡμέρας τρεῖς μὴ βλέπων Kai οὐκ ἔφαγεν 
οὐδὲ ἔπιεν (cf. Epiphan. Opp. 11. 368 etc. ἦν δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς μὴ δυνάμενος 
λαλῆσαι). But here the not eating and not drinking are related as matters 
of fact; whereas the βλέπειν, which from vs. 8 one might have supposed 
to be returning, is as a supposition denied antithetically. The remark of 
Hm. Soph. Antig. 691 is applicable here: μή fortius est, quia ad oppositum 
refertur: nam οὐκ ἐᾶν simpliciter est prohibere, μὴ ἐᾶν autem dicitur, quum, 
quem credas siturum, non sinit. Accordingly οὐ βλέπων there would have 
meant blind outright; μὴ βλέπων affirms not seeing of one who had had 
his sight and might be supposed to have it again. Cf. also Jno. vii. 49 6 
ὄχλος οὗτος, ὃ μὴ γινώσκων τὸν νόμον, Where the ὄχλος is denied an attribute 
which it could and should have had; μὴ γινώσκ. conveys a censure, οὐ 
γινώσκ. would be a simple predicate: unacquainted with the law. See 
besides, Luke xiii. 11; Mark v. 26; Acts ix. 7 (cf. vs. 3). 

Although, then, it may be quite true as Schaef. says, Demosth. ITI. 495: 
in scriptis cadentis graecitatis vix credas, quoties participialis constructio 
(especially that of the Genit. absol.) non οὐ etc., ut oportebat, sed μή ete. 
adsciscat, cf. also Plut. V.6; Thilo, Acta Thom. p. 28, and above, p. 473 


§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 487 


note 2, yet it is indispensable to scrutinize sharply every passage even from 

the writers of the κοινή, before asserting that μή stands for οὐ (Fr. Rom. 432 
II. 295); in particular, as has been already remarked, it should not be Sted 
overlooked that often much depends, especially in the construction of 
negatives with participles, on the mode in which the author conceives of 

his subject, Hm. Vig. 804, 806 ; Mtth. 1487,1441. On the general subject 509 
cf. also Jacobs, Anthol. pal. III. 244; Bihr in Creuzer, Melet. III. 20; 
Schaef. Eurip. Med. 811 ed. Porson." 


6. Continued negation is, as is well known, expressed by the 454 
compound negatives οὐδέ, μηδέ, and οὔτε, μήτε The difference | 
between the two words has often been discussed in modern phi- 
lology, but has not yet been developed in all its relations and with 
complete unanimity ; see especially Hm. Eurip. Med. 330 sqq. 
(also in his Opuse. III. 143 sqq.) and ad Philoctet. p. 140, then 
Franke, comm. II.5 sqq. ; Wex, Antig. II. 156 sqq.; Klotz, Devar. 
Il. 706 sqq.? 

Undoubtedly οὐδέ and οὔτε run parallel with the conjunctions 
δέ and re, and must be explained primarily from their meaning; 
accordingly we may say with Herm. that οὔτε, μήτε are adjunctive, 
οὐδέ. μηδέ disjunctive (δέ is properly but, and denotes an opposi- 
tion, Franke 11. 5), i.e. the latter add negation to negation, the 
former divide a single negation into parts (which last of course 
are mutually exclusive). For instance, Matt. vii. α μὴ δῶτε τὸ 
ἅγιον τοῖς κυσί, μη δὲ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας etc. give not — and 
cast not (two different actions are equally denied, i.e. interdicted) ; 
Matt. vi. 26 οὐ σπείρουσιν οὐδὲ θερίζουσιν οὐδὲ συνάγουσιν etc. 
they sow not, and they reap not, and they gather not. On the other 


1 On Aelian. 3,2 6 δὲ μηδὲν διαταραχθεὶς εἶπεν, 14, 33 ds οὐδὲν διαταραχθεὶς εἶπεν, 
see F'r. Rom. II. 295. Elsewhere od is taken for μή with particip. sometimes in Plut., 
see Held, Plutarch. Tim. p. 457 sq., also in Aelian, see Jacobs, Aelian. anim. II. 187. 
In like manner οὐ seems to me to stand for μή in Basilic. I. 150 παίδων ob x ὑπόντων si 
Jilii non exstant. As it stands it means, since children are not in existence. (Polyb. 7, 9, 
12 τῶν θεῶν οὐ δόντων ὑμῖν καὶ ἡμῖν which Gayler quotes, p. 591, is merely a conjectural 
reading of Casaubon.) In Lucian. saltat. 75, on the contrary, the transition from μήτε 
into οὔτε is owing to an anacoluthon. Lastly, od and μή are differently construed with ~ 
participles in Aelian. anim. 5, 28; see Jacobs in loc. 

2 Where οὐδέ does not refer to a preceding negation, it denotes, as is well known, 
also not, or not even (Klotz, Devar. 707). On the latter meaning see Franke II. 11. 

8 Cf. Hand, de partic. τε dissert. 2 p. 9 sqq.; Engelhardt, Plat. Lach. p. 69 sq.; Stallb. 
Plat. Lach. p. 65, also Jen. Lit.-Zeit. 1812. no. 194 5. 516 and Hartung, Partik. I. 191 ff. 

* Benfey in the new Jahrb. f. Philol. XII. 155: “As re... re connects only ideas or 
propositions which are mutually complementary and combine into one whole, so οὔτε... 
οὔτε can connect only such. This higher unity or complex whole is divided by the 
negatived complementary parts; in these neither the negation of the one nor of the 
other is a whole, but each must be supplemented.” 


488 § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


hand, Matt. xii. 82 οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι 
οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι forgiveness will not be imparted, nedther in this 


433 world, nor in that which is to come (the single negation οὐκ aged. 


6th ed. 


is distributed into two parts on the basis of time); Luke ix. 3 


510 μηδὲν αἴρετε εἰς τὴν ὁδὸν μήτε ῥάβδον μήτε πήραν μήτε ἄρτον 


μήτε ἀργύριον. 

In this acceptation, then, the following particles are usually 
correlative : 

a. Ov... οὐδέ Matt. vi. 28; vii. 18; Luke vi. 44; Jno. xiii. 16; 
xiv. 17; Acts ix.9; Rom. ii. 28, μή... μηδέ Matt. vi. 25; x. 14; 
xxiii. 9f.; Mark xiii. 15; Luke xvii. 23; Jno. iv. 15; Actsiv. 18; 


Rom. vi. 12f.; 2 Cor.iv.2; 1Tim.i.3f., od ... οὐδὲ... οὐδε, Matt. 


xii. 19; Jno. i. 18, 25,1 μή... μηδέ... μηδέ Rom. xiv. 21; Col. 
ii. 21; Luke xiv. 12 (not... nor... nor); 

b. Ov... οὔτε... οὔτε Matt. xii. 82, μή ... μήτε ... μήτε 1 Tim. 
i. 7, μή... μήτε... pyre... μήτε Jas. v. 12 (μήτε three times), 
Matt. v. 34 ff. (μήτε four times) not... neither... nor etc.; but 
still more frequently without a simple negation preceding, Jno. 
v.37 οὔτε φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκηκόατε πώποτε οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἐωράκατε, 
Matt. vi. 20; xxii. 30; Luke xiv. 8δ΄; Jno. viii. 19; ix. ὃ; Acts 
xv. 10; 1 Thess. ii. 5 f.; Rom. viii. 38 (ten times), Matt. xi. 18 
ἦλθε ᾿Ιωάννης μήτε ἐσθίων μήτε πίνων, Acts xxvii. 20; Heb. vii. 3? 
neither ... nor etc. Accordingly, οὔτε and μήτε regularly refer to 
another οὔτε and μήτε (or τε or καί) ?— just as Te... Te (TE... 
καί) correspond to each other ; but οὐδέ and μηδέ connect them- 
selves with a preceding ov or μή, as in fact δέ always refers 
to something that precedes. Hence it may be laid down as a 
principle (resulting from the respective import of τε and δέ), 
that οὔτε... οὔτε denote a more intimate connection than ov... 
οὐδέ. Klotz, Devar. 707 sq.t In this correlation, however, it is a 


1 In Judges i. 27 we find od followed by οὐδέ fourteen times. 

21 Cor. vi. 10 οὔτε... οὔτε... οὔτε... οὔτε... οὔτε... οὔτε... οὔτε... οὔτε... 
οὐ ... οὐ etc. is remarkable only for the accumulation of negatives. For that there 
is nothing singular in οὐ coming after οὔτε, even though it be not supported by the 
passage quoted by Gayl. 386 from Soph. Antig. 4 f., cf. (Dio C, 205, 6; 412, 59) Klotz 
l.c. 711. See also no. 9 below, p. 500. 

8 As to a single μήτε with the suppression of the other, see Hm. Soph. Philoct. 
p- 139 sq. and in general, Franke 11. 13 sq. 

4 Cum οὔτε et ad priora respicere possit et ad sequentia, aptior connexio est singulorum 
membrorum per eas particulas, multo autem dissolutior et fortuita magis conjunctio 
membrorum per οὐδέ... οὐδέ particulas, quia prius οὐδέ nunquam respicit ad ea quae 
sequuntur sed ad priora ... alterum autem οὐδέ per aliquam oppositionis rationem, 
quam habet δέ particula, sequentia adjungit prioribus, non apte connexa, sed potius 
fortuito concursu accedentia. On this account, however, δέ is still stronger than τε. 
Franke Il. 6, 15.. 


§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 489 


matter of indifference whether the things denied are individual 
words (conceptions) merely, or entire sentences; and entire sen- 
tences are with as much propriety rendered negative by οὔτε ... 
οὔτε Acts xxviii. 21 (Plato, rep. 10, 597 ο. ; Phaedr. 260 c.), as 
individual words are by οὐ... οὐδέ. In the latter case, it is true, 

the verb serves for all the negative members. Matt. x.9 μὴ 511 
κτήσησθε χρυσὸν μηδὲ ἄργυρον μηδὲ χαλκόν, 2 Pet. i. 8 οὐκ ἀργοὺς 
οὐδὲ ἀκάρπους καθίστησιν etc., Matt. xxii. 29; xxiv. 20; xxv. 13; 

1 Jno. iii. 18. In Matt. x. 9 the other form of negation might 
have been employed, if the evangelist had said μηδὲν κτήσ. μήτε 
χρυσὸν μήτε apy. etc., cf. Franke Il. 8. Further, Matt. vi, 20, and 434 
Matt. x. 9 compared with Luke ix. 3, throw especial light on the the. 
distinction between οὐδέ and οὔτε. 


The succession οὔτε... ore... καὶ οὐ Jno. v. 37 f., as the interpretation 
which has latterly become usual connects the clauses, would be no more 
liable to grammatical objection than οὔτε... τε οὐ Hm. Soph. Antig. 759 ; 
Poppo, Thue. ITI. I. p. 68; yet the clause with cai... οὐ does not sustain 
quite the same relation as if οὔτε were employed. I consider it, therefore, 
preferable not to comprehend καί... od in the partition. See Mey. in loc. 


From what has been said it follows further, 

8.) οὐδέ... οὐδέ, μηδέ... μηδέ, in the sense of neither... nor 
(when a single negation does not precede), cannot be correlative 456 
(on Thue. 1, 142 see Poppo in loc., and on Xen. Anab. 8, 1, 27 thet 
the same author’s Index to the Anab. p. 535); but where one 
negation is annexed to another, or where a series of negations 
occurs, the first is expressed by ov or μή, and only in this way is 
a foundation laid for the antithetical disjunctive 5é.2_ Mark viii. 26 
λέγων, μηδὲ εἰς THY κώμην εἰςέλθης μη δὲ εἴπῃς Twi etc. cannot 
signify neque ... neque; but the first μηδέ denotes ne ... quidem, 
and the second also not (nor), see Mey.in loc. Cf. Eurip. Hippol. 
1052 and Klotz, Devar. 708. The case is different when the first 
οὐδέ connects the clause to what precedes, as e.g. in the case of 
οὐδὲ γάρ in Gal. i. 12 οὐδὲ yap ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρ. παρέλαβον αὐτὸ 
οὐδὲ ἐδιδάχθην, yet on this passage see below, p. 492. 

Ὁ) as οὔτε and μήτε always introduce co-ordinate members of a 
partition, μήτε is incongruous in Mark iii. 20 ὥςτε μὴ δύνασθαι 
μήτε ἄρτον payeiv,? for μὴ pay. here is dependent on δύνασθαι. 


1 Hence Mith. 1444 does not express himself with accuracy. 
? On οὐδέ and μηδέ after an affirmative sentence, see Engelhardt, Plat. Lach. p. 64 sq. ; 
Franke, p. 6, 8 sq. 
8 That even in the latest edition of Griesbach’s N. T. μήτε should remain unchanged, 
62 


490 8 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


As the text now stands it can only mean: that they neither had 
512 power, nor ate (the first μή being used for μήτε). The sense, 
however, obviously is: that they were not able (not) even [so much 
as] to eat; accordingly, μηδέ must be restored on the authority of 
the better Codd. (see Fr. in loc.), which has been done by Lchm. 
and Tdf., but not by Scholz. In the same way we must read in 
Mark v. 3 οὐδὲ ἁλύσει, in Luke xii. 26 οὐδὲ ἐλάχιστον δύνασθε, in 
vii. 9 οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ “Iopand,' and in Luke xx. 86, where οὐδὲ yap 
ἀποθανεῖν ἔτι δύνανται (as good Codd. read) is not parallel to the 
preceding sentence οὔτε... οὔτε, but the confirmation of it: neque 
435 enim.2 Of. also Matt. v. 36. In these passages also Scholz re- 
θὲ αἱ. brinted the old mistakes. 

0) as οὔτε... οὔτε introduce negative members of a partition, 
and these mutually exclude each other (Hm. Med. p. 882), the 
reading of some Codd. [Sin. also] οὔτε οἶδα οὔτε ἐπίσταμαι (which 
Lehm. and Tdf. [2d ed., not so 7th] have received into the text) 
in Mark xiv. 68 cannot be supported: neque novi neque scio can 
hardly be said, — the verbs being nearly identical in sense. Of. 
Franke II. 18; Schaef. Demosth. II]. 449; Fr. in loc. Griesb. has 

457 received into the text οὐκ οἶδα οὐδὲ ἐπίσταμαι ; cf. Cic. Rosc. Am. 48 
ith el. non (not neque) novi neque scio, which according to the mean- 
ing of the two verbs is very suitable.® 

d) οὔτε may indeed follow ov, so far forth as ov as respects sense 
is to be taken for οὔτε, see Hm. as above, p. 333 sqq. 401 and Soph. 
Antig. p. 110, in opposition to Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 4, 5 and Soph. 
Oed. T. 817; cf. Franke II. 27 sq.; Maetzner, Antiphon p. 195 sq. ; 
Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. Il. 444; Klotz, as above, 709 sq.* Accord- 


is remarkable. What is still more strange, however, is, that Griesbach and Schulz have 
not even noted the var. μηδέ given by approved Codd. See, on the other hand, Scholz 
in loc. 

1 On the same ground οὐδέ should be printed also in Act. apocr. p.168. Yet Déder- 
lein, Progr. de brachylogia serm. gr. p. 17, considers οὔτε correct in such case, maintain- 
ing that inasmuch as τε like καί may denote etiam this negation also may be used in 
the sense of ne quidem. See in opposition Franke II. 11. 

2 Bornem. insists on construing οὔτε with the following καί (see no. 7 below, p. 494), 
but the clause καὶ viol etc. goes with ἰσάγγελοι γάρ. 

8 When otre ... οὔτε is used, it is true “the two notions are regarded as forming 
one compound thought” (Jey.) ; but this supposes that there actually are two notions, 
which may be connected affirmatively by as well ... as. 

4 “Tn rare cases, and in virtue of a rhetorical figure, it is allowable to drop the com- 
plementary particle of the one od, and so impart to the member thus stripped of its 
complementary symbol greater apparent independence, and consequently greater 
rhetorical force ; just as we may say in poetry Not father nor mother, instead of Neither 
father nor mother,” etc. Benfey, as above, 155. Cf. Hm. 1.9. 333, 401 and Franke (who 
differs somewhat) II. 27, (also Déderlein, Progr. de brachylogia p. 6). : 


§ 55, NEGATIVE PARTICLES. . 491 


ingly, o’re! in Rev. ix. 21 is unassailable, Mtth. 1448 ; though the 
usage in question passes as poetical, Franke II. 28. The same 513 
correlation is to be recognized in Rev. v. 4 οὐδεὶς ἄξιος εὑρέθη 
ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον οὔτε βλέπειν αὐτό (as Tdf. also reads), cf. Klotz, 
Devar. II. 709 sq. and the passage adduced there from Aristot. 
polit. 1, 8, though the writer might also have said: οὐδεὶς ἄξ. 
εὑρέθη οὔτε ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον οὔτε PX. But py ... μήτε cannot 
be tolerated in Eph. iv. 27, where the best MSS. [also Sin.] unite 
in giving μηδέ, which Lchm. has admitted into the text. This 
usage is a sort of anacoluthon; in employing ov the writer had 
not yet the subsequent parallel member in view. Sometimes it 
may even have been adopted purposely, in order to give promi- 
nence to the first word. In Rev. xii. 8 also ovdé appears to me 
the more correct expression, and it has been adopted by Knapp. 
On the other hand, in Jno. i. 25 εἰ od οὐκ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς οὔτε ᾿Ηλίας 
οὔτε ὁ προφήτης linguistic propriety does not require that οὐδέ 
should be employed (cf. Hm. Soph. Philoct. p. 140), yet the better 
Codd. [Sin. also] giveit. Likewise in Rev. v.3 οὐδείς ἠδύνατο ἐν τῷ 436 
οὐρανῷ οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, οὐδὲ ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον bth ed, 
οὐδὲ βλέπειν αὐτό the relation of the negations is appropriate : 
no one... nor on the earth, nor ... to open ... nor (not even) to 
look upon tt. 

e) as to οὔτε (several times) ... οὐδέ Acts xxiv. 12 f. according 
to Lchm. and Bornem. from Codd. B [and Sin.] see Hm. Soph. Oed. 
C. 229; Franke 11. 14 sqq.; Klotz, Devar. 11. 714. ‘The οὐδέ is 
not correlative to οὔτε, but commences a new sentence: they 
neither found me in the temple ... nor in the synagogues, ... nor 
can they (and they can not) etc. Most of the Codd., however, 458 
give οὔτε vs. 13. Then οὔτε... εὗρόν pe... οὔτε παραστῆσαι ith el 
δύνανται are regular correlates, and to the first proposition belong 
οὔτε ἐν ταῖς cuvaywyais οὔτε κατὰ πόλιν as Subordinate members. 


On Luke xx. 36, see p. 490. 


That in negative sentences the subordinate members are introduced by 
ἤ, has already been stated, ὃ 53, 6. On the other hand, in Acts xvii. 29, 
according to the reading (adopted by Bornem.) of Cod. D οὐκ ὀφείλομεν 
vomiley οὔτε χρυσῷ ἢ ἀργύρῳ etc., the 7 is co-ordinate with οὔτε, a usage 
of which another example could hardly be found, Mtth. Eurip. VII. 178. 


1 Οὐ μετενόησαν ἐκ τῶν φόνων αὑτῶν, οὔτε ἐκ τῶν... οὔτε ἐκ Tis... οὔτε ἐκ τῶν 
etc. (instead of the regular οὐ μετεν. οὔτε ἐκ τῶν φόνων οὔτε etc.) is as allowable as . 
Odyss. 9, 136 ff. i” ob χρεὼ πείσματός ἐστιν, οὔτ᾽ εὐνὰς βαλέειν, οὔ Te πρυμνήσι᾽ ἀνάψαι, 
or Odyss. 4, 566, see Klotz, Devar. 710. A var. in Rey. as above has not been noted. 


492 § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


However, as re... ἤ is used (Klotz, Devar. 11. 742 sq.), ovre... ἤ may 
also be allowable. But the other authorities omit ovre in this passage. 


It is more difficult to say whether or not μήτε, οὔτε can be: 
used after μηδέ, ovdé. Almost all recent philologists decide in the 
514 negative, see Mtth. Il. 1446 (Engelhardt, as above, p. 70; Leh- 
mann, Lucian. III. 615 sq.; Franke II. 18, and others), on the 
ground that when the stronger expression οὐδέ (Mtth. 1444, 1446) 
precedes, the weaker οὔτε cannot follow, cf. also Fr. Mr. p. 158.1 
Yet in the various editions of Greek authors there occur many 
passages in which οὐδέ is followed by an οὔτε (Thue. 3, 48; see 
Poppo in loc. ; Lucian. dial. mort. 26,2; catapl. 15; Plat. Charm. 
171 Ὁ. ; Aristot. physiogn. 6, p. 148 Franz) ; they are usually 
emended, however, commonly with more or less MS. authority. 
That οὔτε and μήτε cannot be strictly parallel with οὐδέ and μηδέ, 
may hold as a general rule (though the reason alleged does not 
appear to me decisive) ; yet, when these particles have nothing to 
do with οὐδέ (or μηδέν) as a conjunction, οὔτε (μήτε) may follow 
οὐδέ (μηδέν) in the two following cases (cf. also Déderlein in Pas- 
sow’s Lexicon under οὐδέν : 
a) When οὐδέ means ne... quidem (Klotz, Devar. 711; cf. 
2 Mace. v. 10) or neither (also not), or connects the negative 
clause to which δέ points with a preceding clause.? In Gal. i. 12 
487 οὐδὲ yap ἐγὼ ... παρέλαβον αὐτὸ οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην the common 
6th οὐ, reading is to be retained, if the passage is rendered: for also I did 
not receive it,—mnor was I taught it, or neque enim ego (for ov 
yap) accept didicique (-ve), cf. Hoogeveen, doctr. particul. 11, 
980 sq. See Plat. Charm. 171 b.; Hom. in Cerer. 22 (Hm. emend. 
p. 89); Lysias orat. 19 p. 157 Steph. The οὐδέ of good Codd. 
[even Sin.] for οὔτε is probably a correction. 
459 Ὁ) When the οὔτε (ure) following οὐδέ (μηδέν is not co-ordinate 
ith οἱ, with the latter, but is subordinate to it, e.g. I harbor no enmity 
and I do not counterwork the plans of others nor their undertakings, 
Xen. Mem. 2, 2,11 μηδ᾽ ἕπεσθαι μηδὲ πείθεσθαι μήτε στρατηγῷ 
μήτε ἄλλῳ ἄρχοντι (where, however, the first two words are suspi- 
cious), Cyrop. 8, 7, 22 μήποτ᾽ ἀσεβὲς μηδὲν μηδὲ ἀνόσιον μήτε 
ποιήσητε μήτε βουλεύσητε, Plato, legg. 11, 916 6. The negation 


1 Οὔτε after οὐδέ is upheld by Bornem. Xen. A. p. 26; Hand, as above, p. 13. 

2 Hand, as above : intelligitur, nexum, quem nonnulli grammatici inter οὐδέ et οὔτε 
intercedere dixerunt, nullum esse, nisi quod οὐ in voc. οὐδέ cum οὔτε cohaereat. Nam 
si in aliquibus Hom. locis ista vocc. hoc quidem ordine nexa videntur exhiberi, in iis 
δέ pertinet ad superiora conjungenda. Of. Hartung 1. 201; Kletz p. 711. 


§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 493 


μηδέ is here divided into two members (μήτε... μήτε) Dem. 
Callipp. 718 ¢.; Judith viii. 18; ef. Held, Plut. Timol. p. 433 sq. ; 
Mtth. 1445; Kiihner II. 440. Accordingly Acts xxiii. 8 μὴ εἶναι 
ἀνάστασιν, μηδὲ ἄγγελον (μηδὲ εἶναι μήτε ayy.) μήτε πνεῦμα 
would be admissible, and would find additional support in τὰ δ1 
ἀμφότερα immediately following.’ Tdf. has so printed the text 
in his 2d [and 7th] Leipsic edition. The sentence would be sim- 
pler, indeed, with μηδὲ wv., or, as the better Codd. [Sin. also] 
have it, μήτε ayy. μήτε mv.; and this last has been preferred by 
Lchm. and Bornem. The more usual reading, however, might 
easily have been introduced as a correction for the more unusual. 
In 1 Thess. ii. 3, owing to the notions connected, οὐκ ἐκ πλάνης 
οὐδὲ ἐξ ἀκαθαρσίας οὐδὲ ἐν δόλῳ appears to me more suitable 
(the better Codd. too [Sin. also] have this reading, and Lchm. has 
so printed) ; and in general, I think that in this case accurate 
writers would for the sake of perspicuity use ἤ instead of οὔτε, 
see § 53, 6, p. 440 sq. 


In 1 Cor. iii. 2 the best Codd. [Sin. also], instead of the transcriber’s 
error οὔτε as in the received text, give ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἔτι viv δύνασθε ne nunc 
quidem (cf. Acts xix. 2; Lucian. Hermot. 7; conscr. hist. 88 and Fr. Mr. 

p- 157), so in 2 Thess. ii. 2 εἰς τὸ μὴ ταχέως σαλευθῆναι ... μη δὲ θροεῖσθαι 
μήτε διὰ πνεύματος etc. (Lchm. and Tdf.). In 2 Thess. iii. 8 οὐδέ is the 
only correct reading. In Luke vii.9; xii. 27; Acts xvi. 21 Griesb. prop- 
erly adopted οὐδέ, which should be adopted too in Acts iv. 12. In Jas. 
iii. 12 recent editors (Lchm. and Tdf. also) give οὔτε ἁλυκὸν γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι 
ὕδωρ. This reading can only be supported on the assumption that James 
had in mind as the antecedent member οὔτε δύναται συκῆ ἐλαίας ποιῆσαι 
etc. — harsh on any view it must be confessed —; otherwise we must read 
οὐδέ which some Codd. give. [So Cod. Sin. also, but with οὕτως preceding. ] 

Passages like Luke x. 4 μὴ βαστάζετε βαλλάντιον, μὴ πήραν μηδὲ ὑπο- 438 
δήματα (not...nor... neither), Matt. x. 9 μὴ κτήσησθε χρυσὸν μηδὲ θὲ ed 
ἄργυρον μηδὲ χαλκὸν εἰς τὰς ζώνας ὑμῶν, μὴ πήραν εἰς 5ddv, μη δὲ δύο 
χιτῶνας, μη δὲ ὑποδήματα etc., present nothing that is singular. 

It may be incidentally remarked further, that the distinction between 460 
οὐδέ, μηδέ, and καὶ οὐ, καὶ μή, which is explained by Engelhardt, Plat. Lach. Τὰ οὐ, 
p- 65, and still more aptly by Franke II. 8 sq. (καὶ οὐ, καὶ μή after affirma- 
tive sentences and not, yet not, et non, ac non), as it appears to have a 


1 See Hoogeveen, doctr. particul. I. 751. Kiihnél insists on rendering τὰ ἀμφότερα tria 
ista, but by no means vindicates that rendering by Odyss. 15, 78 ἀμφότερον κῦδός τε καὶ 
ἀγλαΐη καὶ ὄνειαρ, since the first two words here, united by re καί, are regarded as 
a single notion. In Acts, as above, were we to read μηδέ, ἀμφότερα still could not mean 


tria; but the writer regards &yy. and πνεῦμα, agreeably to their logical import, as one 
leading conception. 


494 § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


logical foundation, is observable likewise in the N. T., ef. καὶ ob Jno. v. 48; 
vi. 17; vii. 36; Acts xvi. 7; 2 Cor. xiii. 10, καὶ μή Jas. i. 5; iv.17; 1 Pet. 
iis 16; iii, 6; Heb. xiii. 17. 

516 For passages in Greek authors which especially illustrate the difference 
between οὐδέ and οὔτε, see Isocr. Areop. p. 345 οὐκ ἀνωμάλως οὐδὲ ἀτάκτως 
οὔτε ἐθεράπευον οὔτε ὠργίαζον etc., peraut p- 750 ὥςτε μηδένα μοι πώποτε 
μη δ᾽ ἐν ὀλιγαρχίᾳ μη δ᾽ ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ μήτε ὕβριν μήτε ἀδικίαν ἐγκαλέσαι, 
Her. 6, 9 ; Isocr. ep. 8, p. 1016; Xen. Ages. 1,4; Demosth. Brunet 481 b. 
Cf. Mtth. p. 1445. 


7. In two parallel propositions, sometimes οὔτε (μήτε) is fol- 
lowed, not by another negative, but by a simple copula («ad or 
ve), eg. Jno. iv. 11 οὔτε ἄντλημα ἔχεις, καὶ τὸ φρέαρ ἐστὶ βαθύ, 
as in Latin nec haustrum habes et puteus etc. (Hand, Tursell. IV. 
133 sqq.), 8 Jno. 10, ef. Arrian. Al. 4, 7, 6 ἐγὼ οὔτε τὴν ἄγαν 
ταύτην τιμωρίαν Βήσσου ἐπαινῶ ... καὶ ὑπαχθῆναι ᾿Αλέξανδρον 
ξύμφημι etc., Paus. 1, 6,5 Δημήτριος οὔτε παντάπασιν ἐξειστήκει 
Πτολεμαίῳ τῆς χώρας, καί τινας τῶν Αὐγυπτίων λοχήσας διέφθειρεν, 
Lucian. dial. mar. 14,1; Stallb. Plat. Protag. p. 20 {τε is the more 
frequent, Jacobitz, Lucian. Tox. c. 25; Weber, Demosth. p. 402 sq.) 
see Hartung, Partik. I. 193; Klotz, Devar. p. 118, 740; Gotting. 
Anzeig. 1831, S. 1188. On the other hand, in Jas. iii. 14 the 
negation is omitted the second time, or rather affects also the 
annexed clause: μὴ κατακαυχᾶσθε καὶ ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας. 
So also in 2 Cor. xii. 21; Matt. xiii. 15; Mark iv. 12; Jno. xii. 40; 
Acts xxviii. 27; cf. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. 2, 20; Diod. S. 2, 48; 
Aelian. anim. 5, 21; Gataker, Advers. miscell. 2, 2, p. 268; Jacobs, 
Aelian. anim. 11. 182; Boissonade, Nicet. p. 890. The converse 
construction many expositors have asserted is found in Eph. iv. 26 
ὀργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε for μὴ dpy. καὶ (μὴ) ἅμαρτ. So in 
Greek authors (even prose) οὐδέ and οὔτε are frequently used in 
the second member of a sentence, and have to be supplied in 
the first, see Schaef. Bos, ellips. p. 777 ; Hm. Soph. Aj. 239, 616 ; 
Déderlein, brachylog. p. 5 sq.; Poppo, Thuc. II. 1V. 841. This 
construction, however, which would be extremely harsh for the 
prose of the N. T., is not necessary in the preceding passage 
(especially as it does not run μήτε duapt.), see ὃ 43, 2, p. 311 sq. 
On ‘the other hand, in Luke xviii. 7, according to the accredited 
reading ὁ θεὸς οὐ μὴ ποιήσῃ τὴν ἐκδίκησιν τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν αὑτοῦ... 

439 καὶ μακροθυμεῖ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς, especially if the latter verb means 

6th el. delay, the negative particle would be omitted in the second clause, 

461 and merely the interrogative μή nwm would have to be repeated. 
tel Bornem. in the sachs. bibl. Studien I. 69. 


§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 495 


Οὐδὲ... δέ Heb. ix. 12-hardly needs a remark, as od ... δέ is of so very 
frequent occurrence. : 


8. It has frequently been laid down as a rule, that sentences 517 
which contain a single negation followed by ἀλλά (δέν, or in which 
οὐ (μήν) forms an antithesis to a preceding affirmative sentence 
(Matt. ix. 18 Sept.; Heb. xiii. 9; Luke x. 20), are not always (as 
e.g. Mark v. 39 τὸ παιδίον οὐκ ἀπέθανεν ἀλλὰ καθεύδει, where the 
latter thought exactly overturns the first, Matt. ix. 12; x. 34; 
xv. 11; 2 Cor. xiii. 7) to be understood as purely negative, but 
(in consequence of a construction which, though Hebraistic, occurs 
also in Greek prose) must be rendered : not so much... as (non 
tam ... quam, οὐ τοσοῦτον... . ὅσον Heliod. 10,3; Xen. Eph. 5, 11, 
οὐχ οὕτως ... ὡς Dio. Chr. 8, 130, οὐ μᾶλλον ἤ Xen. Hell. 7, 1, 2), 
or: not only ... but also, non solum ...sed etiam,' cf. Blackwall, 
auct. class. sacr. p. 62; Glass. I. 418 sqq.; Wetst. and Kypke ad 
Matt. ix. 13; Heumann on 1 Cor. x. 23 f.; Kuinoel, Acta p. 177; 
Haab, Gr. 145 ff. ; Bos, ellips. p. 772 sq., and others (Valcken. Opuse. 
IT. 190; ad Dion. H. IV. 2121,10; Jacobs, Anthol. pal. ITI. p. lxix.) ; 
e.g. Acts v. 4 οὐκ ἐψεύσω ἀνθρώποις, ἀχλὰ θεῷ not so much to men 
(the apostle Peter), as to God ete.; 1 Cor. xv. 10 οὐκ ἐγὼ δὲ 
(ἐκοπίασαν), aX ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ σὺν ἐμοί, Augustine: non 
ego solus, sed gratia Det mecum (Jno. ν. 80) ;3 Luke x. 20 μὴ 
χαίρετε ὅτι... χαίρετε δὲ ὅτι etc. nolite tam propterea laetari ... 
quam potius. Ὁ 

But in the passages from the N. T. referred to this head, when 
more closely considered, either 


1 The first sense, non tam ... quam, is the one by far most commonly assumed in 
the N. T., as the examples which follow show; and an apparent warrant for it might 
be found in the fact, that in N. T. Greek the relative negation non solum ... sed is fre- 
quently expressed, but non tam . .. quam in point of fact never. 

2 No wonder expositors have been partial to such a weakening of the preceding idiom, 
since even philologists supposed it necessary to soften a strong expression in passages 
of the ancients where there was not the slightest occasion. Thus Dion. H. IV. 2111 
δόξῃ τὸ ἀνδρεῖον ἐπιτηδεύων οὐκ ἀληθείᾳ is still translated by Reiske: te fortitudinis 
studiosum esse opinione magis quam re ipsa. For a similar impropriety, see Alberti, 
observ. p. 71. As to the misapprehension of Palairet (obs. p. 236) in reference to 
Macrob. Saturn. I, 22, see my grammatische Excurse §. 155. Cic. off. 2, 8, 27 also 
is easily disposed of according to the preceding remarks. Moreover, any one may see 
in Glass. as above, p. 421, how the older Biblical interpreters allowed themselves to be 
influenced even by doctrinal considerations in explaining this idiom. In 1 Pet. i. 12 
the weakening of od ... δέ into non tam .. . quam (see Schott even in the latest edition) 
arises from misunderstanding διακονεῖν. Flatt in 1 Cor. vii. 4 wanted to have even the 
simple οὐ restricted by a μόνον. On 1 Cor. ix. 9 the passage of Philo quoted by ex- 
positors throws sufficient light. 


496 8 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


44) ἃ. an wnconditional negation is plainly intended, as may be 
she. gathered from a careful examination of the context: Matt. ix. 13 
462 ἔλεον θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν, where Christ, using the words of the 
Τὰ el. prophet (Hos. vi. 6), really wishes to have mercy (a state of heart) 
put in the place of sacrifices (mere symbols), cf. what follows: οὐ 
yap ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους, GAN ἁμαρτωλούς ; Jno. vii. 16 ἡ ἐμὴ 
διδαχὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμή, ἀλλὰ τοῦ πέμψαντός με, Where Jesus speaks 
of the origin of his doctrine (vss. 15, 17,18): my doctrine (which 
ye consider mine, cf. vs. 15) belongs not to me, but to God, —has 
for its author not me, but God, (Christ calls it ἡ ἐμὴ 88. in refer- 
ence to the opinion of the Jews, who in the words πῶς οὗτος γράμ- 
ματα οἶδε, μὴ μεμαθηκώς ; assumed it to be something acquired by 
means of study),! cf. Jno. v. 302; xii. 44; Jno. vi. 27 ἐργάζεσθε 
μὴ THY βρῶσιν τὴν ἀπολλυμένην, ἀλλὰ τὴν βρῶσιν τὴν μένουσαν εἰς 
ζωὴν aidv., ἣν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρ. ὑμῖν δώσει, where Jesus censures 
the conduct of the people who had come to him as the Messiah, 
and the thought: not so much for ordinary food as for heavenly 
(Kiihn6l) would be absurd. As to vs. 26 see Liicke. In 1 Cor. 
vii. 10 Paul makes a distinction between the Lord’s injunctions 
and his own, as he does in vs. 12, inverting the order; for he 
alludes there to Christ’s declaration Matt. v. 32. Recent exposi- 
tors are right. As to 1 Cor. xiv. 22 cf. 23 no doubt can exist; 
cf. besides, 1 Cor. x. 24 (Schott) and Mey. in loc., Eph. vi. 12; 
Heb. xiii. 9; 1 Cor.i.17 and Mey. in loc. Likewise in 2 Cor. vii. 9 
χαίρω οὐχ ὅτι ἐλυπήθητε ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἐλυπήθητε εἰς μετάνοιαν in the 
first clause λυπηθῆναι is denied in itself (the thought so far as 
contained in λυπηθ.) and absolutely, but to be taken up again in 
the second clause with an added limitation εἰς μετάνοιαν. So in 
non bonus sed optimus (see the note below), non cancels good (in 
the positive) (good he is not), in order straightway to put in its 
place the only correct term optimus, (which of course comprehends 

the bonus also). Or, 
b. in other passages, the absolute negation is on rhetorical 


1 Bengel : non est mea, non ullo modo discendi labore parta. 

? Similar to this would be to say e.g. of a biblical expositor abounding in ancient 
quotations, Thy learning is not thy learning, but Wetstein’s. The first thy learning is put 
only problematically ; and to infer from it that the speaker means actually to ascribe 
to the party concerned (that) learning in some degree or in a certain respect, is an infer- 
ence purely grammatical not logical. Hm. Eurip. Alcest. p. 29 had already glanced at 
non bonus sed optimus (Fr. diss. in 2 Cor. II. p.162). Of ἃ similar kind are the passages 
cited by Heumann as above: Cic. Arch. 4, 8 se non interfuisse sed egisse, and Vell 
Pat. 2, 13 vir non saeculi sui sed omnis aevi optimus. Cf. also 2 Cor. vii. 9. 


§ 55, NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 497 


grounds employed instead of a conditional (relative), not for the 
purpose of really (logically) cancelling the first conception, but in 
order to direct undivided attention to the second, so that the first 519 
may comparatively disappear (cf. Mey. on Acts v. 4): 1 Thess. 
iv. 8 (Schott) rejecteth not man, but God.1 Of course he rejects 463 
the apostle also, who announces the divine truth; but the inten- ‘th οὐ, 
tion was to present to the mind with full force the fact, that it is ΤΣ 
properly God, as the real author of the truth announced, who is 
rejected. The force of the thought is immediately impaired if 
rendered: he rejects not so much man as God. To give sucha 
translation would be like diluting e.g. an asyndeton (the nature 
of which also is rhetorical) by subjoining a copula. Therefore it 
appears to me that οὐκ... ἀλλά, when it logically means non tam 

. quam, is always a part of the rhetorical coloring of the com- 
position, and for that reason is to be preserved in the translation 


(as is done by all good translators). The speaker has chosen this 


negative designedly, and the expression is not to be judged of 
grammatically merely. Whether, however, such is actually the 
case, is to be determined not according to the impressions of the 
interpreter, but by the context and the nature of the connected 
thoughts. In this way the following passages are to be treated: 
Matt. x. 20 (Schott) οὐχ ὑμεῖς ἐστε οἱ λαλοῦντες, ἀλλὰ τὸ πνεῦμα 
τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν, Mark ix. 37 (Schott) ὃς ἐὰν ἐμὲ δέξηται, οὐκ ἐμὲ 
δέχεται, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀποστείλαντά με, 1 Cor. xv. 10 περισσότερον 
αὐτῶν πάντων ἐκοπίασα" οὐκ ἐγὼ δέ, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ σὺν ἐμοί, 
Jno. xii. 44 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ πιστεύει εἰς ἐμέ, GAN εἰς τὸν 
πέμψαντά με, Acts v. 4 (cf. Plutarch. apophth. Lac. 41; see Duker, 
Thue. 4, 92); Luke x. 20 (where many MSS. insert a μᾶλλον 
after δέν ; 2 Cor.ii.5 (Schott). As to Luke xiv. 12f. see Bornem. 
and de Wette in loc.? 3 


1 Cf. Demosth. Euerg. 684 b. ἡγησαμένη ὑβρίσθαι οὐκ ἐμέ (but he had been abused 
actually) ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὴν (τὴν βουλὴν) καὶ τὸν δῆμον τὸν ψηφισάμενον etc., Aesop. 148, 2 


_ οὗ σύ με λοιδορεῖς, GAN’ ὁ πύργος, ἐν ᾧ ἵστασαι. Klotz, Devar. p. 9: οὐκ ἐκινδύνευσεν, 


ἀλλ᾽ ἔπαθεν est: non periclitatus sed passus est, quibus verbis hoc significatur: non dico 
istum periclitatum esse sed passum, ita ut, cum ille dicatur passus esse, jam ne cogitetur 
quidem de eo, quod priori membro dictum est. 

? Against this view, propounded in the first edition of this work in accordance with 
the remarks of de Wette (A. L.-Z. 1816 nr. 41 8. 321) and those of a critic in the Theol. 
Annal. 1816 S. 873, Fr. dissert. in 2 Cor. II. 162 sq. declared himself. His objections 
were examined by Seyer in the ἢ. krit. Journ. ἃ. Theol. 3 B. 1 St.; but Fr. discussed 
the subject anew in his 2d excursus on Mr. p. 778 58ᾳ. I had written the above in su)- 
stance before I received this excursus, and it agrees essentially with the opinion expressed 
in the second edition of this Grammar S. 177, and in my grammat. Excurse S. 155. 

63 


498 § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


520 When (od) uy... ἀλλὰ καί are correlative, as in Phil. ii. 4 μὴ τὰ ἑαυτῶν 
ἕκαστος σκοποῦντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἑτέρων ἕκαστος, the original plan of the 

464 sentence intended od ... ἀλλά, and καί was introduced because the writer 

Τὰ αἱ. on reaching the second member determined to soften and qualify the 

442 thought. Passages of a similar sort are not unfrequent in Greek authors, 

fine see Fr. Exc. 2 ad Mr. p. 788; cf. Thue. ed. Poppo IIL. III. 300, (on 
the Latin non ... sed etiam or quoque, see Ramshorn S. 535 f.; Kritz, Vell. 
Pat. p. 157f.). The converse is οὐ μόνον ... ἀλλά (without καί, see Leh- 
mann, Lucian. II. 551), when the writer drops μόνον, and, instead of a 
thought parallel to the first, subjoins one that is stronger (which usually 
includes the former), see Stallb. Plat. symp. p. 115; Fr. as above, 786 ff. 
and Klotz, Devar. p.9sq. So Acts xix. 26 ὅτι οὐ μόνον "Edéoov, ἀλλὰ 
σχεδὸν πάσης τῆς ᾿Ασίας ὃ Παῦλος οὗτος πείσας μετέστησεν ἱκανὸν ὄχλον that 
he not only at Ephesus, but in all Asia etc., where strict propriety required: 
but also in other places, cf. 1 Jno. v. 6 οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ 
ὕδατι καὶ τῷ αἵματι. On the Lat. non solum (modo) ... sed, see Hand, 
Tursell. IV. 282 sqq.; Kritz, Sallust. Cat. p. 80. The second member is 
heightened in a different way in Phil. ii. 12; in 1 Tim. v. 23 μηκέτι ὑδρο- 
πότει, ἀλλ᾽ οἴνῳ ὀλίγῳ χρῶ is to be rendered, Be no longer a water-drinker 
(ὑδροποτεῖν cf. Her. 1,71; Athen. 1.168), but use a little wine ; ὑδροποτεῖν 
differs from ὕδωρ πίνειν, and signifies to be a water-drinker i.e. to drink 
water usually and exclusively. One who uses a little wine ceases of course 
to be a water-drinker in this sense, and it is quite unnecessary here to 
supply μόνον. Matthies in loc. is not accurate. 


9. Two negatives employed together in one principal clause} 
(Klotz, Devar. p. 695 sqq.; Εἰ. Lieberkiihn, de negationum graec. 
cumulatione. Jen. 1849. 4to.), either 

a. Produce an affirmation, Acts iv. 20 od δυνάμεθα ἡμεῖς, ἃ 
εἴδομεν Kal ἠκούσαμεν, μὴ λαλεῖν, NON possumuS... non dicere, 
i.e. we must declare (cf. Aristoph. ran. 42 οὔτοι μὰ τὴν Δήμητρα 
δύναμαι μὴ yerav), 1 Cor. xii. 15 οὐ mapa τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ 
σώματος it is still, for all that, of the body (belongs to it). In the 
first passage the particles of negation belong to different verbs 
(δυνάμεθα is first denied and then λαλεῖν), in Syriac tumoats ἢ 
wooussso) fl» -ϑϑολο pay [op ; in the last, οὐκ ἔστιν consti- 
tutes a single idea which is negatived by the first ov, — the not 
belonging to the body is denied, (cf. οὐκ εἶναι used thus in a nega- 


Meyer and BCrusius have decidedly agreed with me in the various passages adduced 
above ; but I take especial pleasure in the remarks of my acute colleague Klotz ad 
Devar. p. 9 54. in support of my view. As to non... sed, ef. Kritz, Sallust. Jug. p. 533 ; 
Hand, Tur. IV. 271. 

1 The two negatives equivalent to an affirmative in Rom. xv. 18, which occur in two 
different clauses blended by attraction, require no special notice. 


§ 55, NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 499 


tive clause in Demosth. Androt. 420c.; Aclian. 12, 36). See 521 
besides, Matt. xxv. 9 text. rec. Of. Poppo, Thue. HI. IV. 711; 
Mtth. II. 1449. Or, 

b. They both produce but a single negation (which is the more 
frequent case), and serve (originally) only to make the principal 
negation which would have sufficed alone more distinct and forci- 465 
ble, and to impart to the sentence a negative character through- 7th ed, 
out:! Jno. xv. 5 χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν non potestis " 448 
Jacere quidquam,:: ie. nthil pot. fac. (Dem. Callip. 718 ¢.), 2 Cor." 
xi. 8 παρὼν... οὐ κατενάρκησα οὐδενός, Acts xxv. 24 ἐπιβοῶντες 
μὴ δεῖν αὐτὸν ζὴν μηκέτε, Mark xi. 14 μηκέτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐκ 
σοῦ μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγῃ, 1 Cor. i. T ὥςτε ὑμᾶς μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν 
μηδενὶ χαρίσματι, Matt. xxii. 16; Mark i. 44; v. 387; vii. 12; 
ix. 8; xii. 84; xv. 4f.; Matt. xxiv. 21; Luke iv. 2; viii. 43 (51 - 
var.) ; x.19; xx.40; xxii.16; Jno. iii. 27; v.30; vi.63; ix. 33; 
xvi. 23 f.; xix. 41; Acts viii. 16, 39; Rom. xiii. 8; 1 Cor. viii. 2 
(var.); 2 Cor. vi. 3; 2 Thess. ii. 3; 1 Pet. iii. 6; 1 Jno.i. 5; 
Rev. xviii. 4,11, 14, etc.2 Soin particular where the notion every, 
always, every time, everywhere, is added to the negative clause 
for its necessary or rhetorical amplification (Béckh, nott. Pind. 
p- 418 sq.),? or where the negation is decomposed, Matt. xii. 32 
οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν TH μέλλοντι." 
In this way a single sentence may contain a series of negatives: 
Luke xxiii. 53 οὗ οὐκ ἣν οὐδέπω οὐδεὶς κείμενος, Mark v. 3 (cf. 
Aelian. anim. 11, 81 ὡς οὐδεπώποτε οὐδένα οὐδὲν ἀδικήσας, Plat. 
Parmen. 166 a. ὅτε τἄλλα τῶν μὴ ὄντων οὐδενὶ οὐδαμῆ οὐδαμῶς οὐδε- 
μίαν κοινωνίαν ἔχει, Phaed. Τ8 ἃ. ; Her. 2, 39 οὐδὲ ἄλλου οὐδενὸς 
ἐμψύχου κεφαλῆς γεύσεται Αἰγυπτίων οὐδείς, Lysias pro Mantith. 
10; Xenoph. A. 2,4, 28 ; Plat. Phil. 29 Ὁ. and soph. 249 ". ; Lucian. 
chronol. 13; Dio C. 635, 40; 402,385; 422, 24); see Wyttenb. Plat. 
Phaed. p. 199; Ast, Plat. polit. p. 541; Boisson. Philostr. Her. 
Ρ. 446 and Nicet. p. 248, especially also Hm. Soph. Antig. p. 13; 


1 As in popular German; yet the accumulation of negatives is genuine German, and 
has been expelled from the language of the educated only through the influence of the 
Latin, which so thoroughly pervades our literary culture. As to Latin, see Jani, ars 
poet. lat. p. 236 sq. 

2In the Sept. cf. Gen. xlv. 1; Num. xvi. 15; Exod. x. 23; Deut. xxxiv. 6; Josh. 
ii. 11; 1 Sam. xii. 4, especially Hos. iv. 4 ὅπως μηδεὶς μήτε δικάζηται μήτε ἐλέγχῃ μηδείς. 
Transcribers have in such sentences sometimes omitted a negative, see F’r. Mr. p. 107. 

8 But this mode of expression is not always employed, cf. Acts x. 14 οὐδέποτε ἔφαγον 
πᾶν κοινὸν καὶ ἀκάθαρτον (without var.), 1 Jno. iv. 12. 

* Klotz, Devar. II. 698: in hac enuntiatione ita repetita est negatio, quod unumquodque 
orationis membrum, quia eo amplificabatur sententia, quasi per se stare videbatur. 


500 § 56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


Gayl. p. 382 sq. When οὐδέ πε... quidem is employed, it is'‘usual 
522 in Greek to prefix another negative to the verb (cf. Stallb. Plat. 
rep. 1. 279; Poppo, Thue. III. Il. 460). So Luke xviii. 13 οὐκ 


ἤθελεν οὐδὲ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐπᾶραι. 


In 1 Cor. vi. 10, after several antecedent partitive clauses (οὔτε, οὔτε, 
ov, ov), the negative is once more repeated for the sake of perspicuity with 
466 the predicate βασιλείαν θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσι. The best Codd., how- 
ith ed. ever, [Sin. also] omit it, and Lehm. has expunged it. In Rev. xxi. 4 ὃ 
θάνατος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι, οὔτε πένθος οὔτε κραυγὴ οὔτε πόνος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι, the 
writer might also without hesitation have dispensed with the second οὐ. 
444 What comes nearest, however, is Aesch. Ctesiph. 285 b. οὐδέ ye ὃ πονηρὸς 
δ} οἱ, οὐκ ἄν ποτε γένοιτο δημοσίᾳ χρηστός, see Bremi in loe. (c. 77), cf. also Plat. 
- rep. 4, 426 b. and Hm. Soph. Antig. as above. On the other hand, οὐκ 
ἔσται ἔτι οὔτε πένθος etc. would be quite according to rule. In Acts xxvi. 26 
the text. rec. gives λανθάνειν αὐτόν τι τούτων οὐ πείθομαι οὐδέν; but the better 
Codd. omit either οὐδέν or τι. [Yet οὐθέν with τι is found in Cod. Sin.*] 

On the pleonasm of μή after verbs in which the idea of negation is 
already contained, see § 65, 2, p. 604. 

Note. A peculiar kind of negation is formed with εἰ in oaths by virtue 
of an aposiopesis of the apodosis ; as, Mark viii. 12 ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, εἰ 
δοθήσετει TH γενεᾷ ταύτῃ σημεῖον i.e. no sign will be given; Heb. iii. 11; 
iv. 3 Sept. ὦμοσα, εἰ εἰςξελεύσονται εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσίν pov. This is an 
imitation of the Hebrew ox (cf. Gen. xiv. 23; Deut. i. 35; 1 Kings i. 51; 
ii. 8; 2 Kings iii. 14, etc.), and a form of imprecation must always be 
supplied as the apodosig: in the last passage, then will I not live, not be 
Jehovah ; in passages where the speaker is a man, so may God punish me 
(cf. 1 Sam. iii. 17; 2 Sam. iii. 35), then will I not live, and the like; Ewald 
krit. Gr. 661, (ef. Aristoph. equit. 698 f. εἰ μὴ σ᾽ ἐκφάγω.... οὐδέποτε βιώσομαι, 
Cic. fam.-9, 15, 7 mortar, si habeo). “Edy is thus used in Neh. xiii. 25; 
Song of Sol. ii. 7; iii. 5 Sept. Of the opposite, ἐὰν μή or εἰ μή (affirmatively), 
no instance occurs in the N. T. (cf. Ezek. xvii. 19), for most unwarrantably 
has Haab S. 226 referred to this head Mark x. 30; 2 Thess. ii. 3. 


8 56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


1. The (subjective) negative μή ne (with its compounds) is used 
in independent sentences to express a negative wish or a warning, 
and is construed 

523. a. With the Optative (Aor.) — the mood which would be used 
also without the negation — when a negative wish is expressed 
(Franke I. 27), e.g. in the frequently recurring μὴ γένοιτο Luke 
xx, 16; Rom. iii.6; ix.14; Gal. ii. 17 (Sturz, dial. Alex. 204 sq.), 


§ 56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 501 


and in μὴ αὐτοῖς λογισθείη 2 Tim. iv. 16 (Plat. legg. 11, 918 d.). 
So also μηκέτι, according to the text. rec., Mark xi. 14 μηκέτι ἐκ 
σοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα μηδεὶς καρπὸν Payot may no one ever again etc. 
The Subjunctive φάγῃ, however, would here be more appropriate 
in the mouth of Christ, — if it only had more external authority 
in its favor. Besides, see Gayler p. 76 sqq. 82. 

b. When a warning is expressed, it is construed a) sometimes 

with the Imperative Present, usually where something permanent 
and which a person is already doing is to be indicated (Hm. Vig. 467 
809), Matt. vi. 19 μὴ θησαυρίζετε ὑμῖν, vii. 1 μὴ κρίνετε, Jno. v. 14 τὰ 
μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε, cf. Matt. xxiv. 6,117; Jno. xiv,1; xix. 21; Mark 
xiii. 7,11; Rom. xi. 18; Eph. iv. 28; 1 Tim. v. 23; 1 Pet. iv. 12; 445 
8) sometimes with the Subjunctive Aorist, when something tran- 4: 
sient, which should not be begun at all, is to be expressed (Hm. 
as above), Luke vi. 29 ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντός σου τὸ ἱμάτιον καὶ τὸν 
χιτῶνα μὴ κωλύσῃς, Matt. x. 84 μὴ νομίσητε (do not conceive), ote 
ἦλθον etc., vi. 18 ; Luke xvii. 23; Acts xvi. 28. So in legislative 
prohibitions, Matt. vi. 7; Mark x. 19; Col. ii. 21, where not the 
repetition or continuation, but the action itself (though done but 
once) is interdicted, and absolutely. The Aor. Imperat., which 
specially has this signification, and is not at all rare in later writers 
(Gayl. p. 64),? does not occur in the N. T. (and is doubtful in the 
Sept. also). On the other hand, the Pres. Imperat. also is often 
used in reference to what should not be begun at all (Hm. as 
above, Franke 1. 30); οἵ, Matt. ix. 30; Eph. v.6; 1 Tim. v. 22; 
1 Jno.iii.7. In general, see Hm. de praeceptis Atticistar. p. 4 566. 
(Opuse. I. 270 sqq.); cf. Soph. Aj. p. 163; Bhdy. 393f.; Franke 
I. 28 sqq. The Imperat. and Subjunctive are both employed in 
one sentence in Luke x. 4. 


The Pres. Imperat. is also construed with μή in Rom. xiii. 8 μηδενὶ 
μηδὲν ὀφείλετε ; for owing to the subjective negatives ὀφείλ. cannot be 
taken as an Indicative. Reiche’s observations on the other side are a 
strange mixture of obscurity and half-truth. And if he means to say that 
the subjective negatives are used in the same way in some of the passages 524 
adduced by Wetstein, he is very much mistaken; for in these passages 
the Inf. or Participle is employed, both of which regularly take μή. 

As to οὐ with the Fut. Indic., partly in passages from the O. T. law, as 


1 There must here be ἃ .omma after Spare, as H. Stephanus correctly remarked in 
the preface to his edition of the N. T. of 1576. If ὁρᾶτε μή be immediately connected, 
θροῆσθε must be substituted for θροεῖσθε. Taf. [in his 2d ed.| has not attended to 
this. {In his Ist ed. and 7th he has it correctly, also in his edd. man.| 

2 Cf. Bremi, excurs. 12 ad Lys. p. 452 sqq. 


502 § 56, CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


Matt. v. 21 οὐ φονεύσεις, xix. 18; Acts xxiii. 5; Rom. xiii. 9, and partly 
in the N. T. style itself, Matt. vi. 5 οὐκ ἔσεσθε ὥςπερ of ὑποκριταί, where 
μή with the Subjunctive might have been expected, cf. § 43,5. Not unlike 
this is Xen. Hell. 2, 3,34; see Locella, Xen. Ephes. p. 204; Franke I. 24. 
(On μή with the Fut. Indic. in a mildly prohibitive sense, see Weber, 
Demosth. p. 369.) 


When μή in a prohibitive sense is joined with the third Person 
(as frequently in laws, see Franke, as above, p. 32), the Imperat. 
is used (always in the N.T.), not the Subjunctive (Hm. Soph. Aj. 
p. 163): the Present Imper. when what is forbidden has already 
commenced, and the Aorist Imper. when something which has not 
468 yet commenced is to be avoided (in future also); as, Rom. vi. 12 μὴ 
th el. οὖν βασιλευέτω ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐν τῷ θνητῷ ὑμῶν σώματι, xiv.16; 1 Cor. 
vii. 12,13; Col.ii.16; 1 Τίμα, νἱ. 2; Jas.i.7; 1 Pet.iv.15; 2 Pet. 
ili. 8; on the other hand Matt. vi. 8 μὴ γνώτω ἡ ἀριστερά σου etc., 
Xxiv. 18 μὴ ἐπιστρεψάτω ὀπίσω, Mark xiii. 15 μὴ καταβάτω eis τὴν 
οἰκέαν (probably also in Matt. xxiv. 17 according to good Codd. 
[Sin. also], where the text. rec. has xataBawérw). Cf. Xen. C. 
7,5,73; 8,7,26; Aeschin. Ctes. 282 .¢.; Mtth. 11. 1157; Kiihner 
44¢ 11. 118. (Instances from the Sept., therefore, are not needed 
th el. here ; otherwise, besides Deut. xxxiii. 6 and 1 Sam. xvii. 32, many 
could be found, as Josh. vii. 3; 1 Sam. xxv. 25; 2 Sam. i. 21; 
Judges vi. 39.) 
If a dehortation in the 1st Pers. (Plur.) is to be expressed, μή 
takes the Subjunctive, and either the Pres. or the Aor. according 
to the distinction indicated above (Hm. Soph. Aj. p. 162), e.g. 
Jno. xix. 24 μὴ σχίσωμεν, but 1 Jno. iii. 18 μὴ ἀγαπῶμεν λόγῳ (as 
some were doing), Gal. vi. 9; 1 Thess. v.6; Rom. xiv. 13; 1 Cor. 
x. 8. In Gal. vy. 26 the Codd. vary, some having μὴ γινώμεθα 
κενόδοξοι (text. rec.), others γενώμεθα. The better [Sin. also] 
favor the former, (and Lchm. and Tdf. have so printed). The 
apostle may mean to reprove a failing already existing in the 
churches, as seems probable also from what precedes. Mey. takes 
a different view. From Greek authors, see evidence for the use 
of the 1st Pers. Plur. Subj. in Gayler 72 sq. 
2. In dependent clauses μή (μήπως, μήποτε etc.) is used, 
525 ἃ. In the sense of in order that not (for which ἵνα μή is more 
commonly employed), with the Subjunctive after Pres.and Impera. 
1 Cor. ix. 27 trwmidfm μου τὸ σῶμα... μήπως ... ἀδόκιμος γένω- 
pat, 2 Cor. ii. 7; xii. 6; Matt. v. 25; xv. 82; Luke xii. 58 and 
frequently ; with the Optative after a Preterite, Acts xxvii. 42 τῶν 


§56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 503 


στρατιωτῶν βουλὴ ἐγένετο, ἵνα τοὺς δεσμώτας ἀποκτείνωσι, μή τις 
ἐκκολυμβήσας διαφύγοι, but good Codd. [Sin. also] have here 
διαφύγῃ, which Lchm. and Tdf. have adopted (Bhdy. 401; Kru. 
168). The latter reading, however, may be a correction or an 
error of transcribers. The Subj. is also used in the O. T. quota- 
tion Matt. xiii. 15; Acts xxviii. 27, where, however, as a permanent 
result is meant, it is less questionable. The Indic. Fut. (along 
with a Subj. Aor.) Mark iv. 12 Sept. μήποτε ἐπιστρέψωσι καὶ 
ἀφεθήσεται (according to good Codd.) [as also the Fut. βληθήσῃ 
Matt. v. 25] it is not necessary to regard as likewise dependent 
on μήποτε, though even then the Fut. would be quite proper, see 
Fr. This applies to ἐάσομαι Acts xxviii. 27 (Born. ἰάσωμαι) cf. 
Iuke xiv. 8f. In Matt. vii. 6 Lchm. and Tdf. read μήποτε κατα- 
πατήσουσιν, Where Griesb. and Scholz have not noted any var. 

Ὁ. In the sense of that not, lest, after ὅρα, βλέπε or φοβοῦμαι, 
and the like (Hm. Vig. 797; Rost, Gr. 650f.). In this connection 
the particle is followed 

a) by the Indicative, when the suspicion (apprehension) that 
something is, will be, or has been, a matter of fact, is also ex- 
pressed: Present Indic. Luke xi. 35 σκόπει, μὴ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν σοὶ 
σκότος ἐστίν (Hm. Soph. Aj. 272 μὴ ἐστί verentis quidem est ne 
quid nune sit, sed indicantis simul, putare se ita esse, ut veretur, 469 
ef. Gayl. 8317 sq.); Protev. Jacobi 141; Future Indic. Col. ii. 8 Τὰ οἱ. 
βλέπετε, μή τις ἔσται ὑμᾶς ὁ συλωγωγῶν ne futurus sit, ne existat, 
qui etc. Heb. iii. 12; Mark xiv.2; Her. 3,36; Plat. Cratyl. 393 ο. ; 
Achill. Tat. 6, 2 (Ὁ. 837 Jac.) ; Xen. C. 4, 1, 18 etc. (cf. Stallb. 447 
Plat. rep. I. 8336) ; Preterite Indic. after a Pres. Gal. iv. 11 φοβοῦμαι bth ed. 
ὑμᾶς, μήπως εἰκῆ κεκοπίακα (may have labored), see Hm. Eurip. 
Med. p. 856; Poppo, Thue. I. 1. 188 ; Stallb. Plat. Menon p. 98 sqq.; 526 
ef. Thuc. 8,53; Plato, Lys. 218d.; Diog. L. 6,5; Lucian. Piscat. 
15 (Job i. 5), see Gayl. 317, 320. 

8) by the Subjunctive (Gayl. 323 sqq.), when the object of a 


1 We cannot with de Wette pronounce this acceptation inappropriate on the ground 
that “simply a general warning is here expressed.” That is just the question. An 
injunction to examine carefully lest such might he the case, Jesus might certainly give 
to his contemporaries, according to the assumption elsewhere made in the N. T. respect- 
ing their predominant religious character; and this injunction is in reality general. 
Let every one take care lest the second of the cases mentioned in vs. 34 should apply 
tohim. The apprehension that Jesus would thus be countenancing the doctrine of the 
complete depravation of man’s reason is groundless; and Niemeyer (Hall. Pred.-Journ. 
1832. Nov.) should not have been induced by such apprehension to take the Indicative 
for the Subjunctive, —an interpretation which he supports, moreover, by passages of 
a totally different nature. 


504 § 56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


mere apprehension, which may perhaps prove groundless, is indi. 
cated: by the Present Subj. Heb. xii. 15 Sept. ἐπισκοποῦντες... 
μή τις ῥίζα πικρίας ... ἐνοχλῇ (Hm. Soph. Aj. 272 μὴ ἢ verentis 
est, ne quid nunc sit, simulque nescire se utrum sit nec ne signi. 
ficantis) ; usually by the Aorist Subj. in reference to something still 
future, Matt. xxiv. 4 βλέπετε, μή τις ὑμᾶς πλανήσῃ, 2 Cor. xi. 8 
φοβοῦμαι, μήπως ... φθαρῇ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν, xii. 20; Luke xxi. 8; 
Acts xiii. 40; 1 Cor. viii. 9; x. 12. The same mood is employed 
in narration after a Pret. Acts xxiii. 10 εὐλαβηθεὶς μὴ διασπασθῇ 
... ἐκέλευσε, xxvii. 17, 29, as after words of fearing (where the 
fear appears to be well founded, Rost S. 650) even in the best 
Greek prose authors, Xen. A. 1, 8, 24 Κῦρος δείσας, μὴ ὄπισθεν 
γενόμενος κατακόψῃ τὸ ᾿Ελληνικόν, Cyr. 4, 5, 48 πολὺν φόβον ἡμῖν 
παρείχετε, μή τι πάθητε, Lysias caed. Eratosth. 44 ὃ ἐγὼ δεδιὼς μή 
τις πύθηται ἐπεθύμουν αὐτὸν ἀπολέσαι, Cf. also Thue. 2, 101 ; Plato, 
Euthyd. 288 b. ; Herod. 4,1, 3; 6,1, 11 ; see Mtth. IL 1189; 
Bornem. Xen. sympos. p. 70; Gayl. 324f. The Indic. Fut. and 
Subjunct. are connected in 2 Cor.*xii. 20 f. φοβοῦμαι, μήπως οὐχ 
οἵους θέλω εὕρω ὑμᾶς κἀγὼ εὑρεθῶ ὑμῖν... μὴ πάλιν ἐλθόντος 
μου ταπεινώσει με ὁ θεός ete. 
In this way we must judge of elliptical passages also (Gayl. 327), such 
410 28 Matt. xxv. 9 μήποτε οὐκ ἀρκέσῃ ἡμῖν καὶ ὑμῖν lest there be not enough, i.e. 
ith el, it is to be feared that there may not be enough (according to the text. rec., 
where, however, recent critics read μήποτε οὐ μὴ ἀρκέσῃ, though without 
decidedly preponderant authority ; and then μήποτε is taken by itself: no, 
in no wise). Rom. xi. 21 εἰ ὃ θεὸς τῶν κατὰ φύσιν κλάδων οὐκ ἐφείσατο, 
μήπως οὐδὲ σοῦ φείσεται (far better supported than φείσηται) if God has 
not spared, (1 tear and presume) that he will not spare thee also, ne tibi 
quoque non sit parciturus, ef. Gen. xxiy. 39. 
In Gal. ii. 2 dvéBnv ... ἀνεθέμην ... μήπως cis κενὸν τρέχω ἢ ἔδραμον, 
Fr. (Conject. 1. note, p. 50) considered the translation ne operam meam 
luderem aut lusissem faulty in two respects: because instead of τρέχω 
(after a Preterite) the Optative was to be expected; while the Indic. 
448 ἔδραμον here would mean, what the apostle cannot have intended to say, 
θὰ el. that he had labored in vain. Hence Fr. took the words as a direct question: 
num frustra operam meam in evangelium insumo an insumsi? He himself, 
527 however, afterwards felt that this explanation is forced, and in the Opuscula 
Fritzschiorum p. 173 sq. gave a different rendering. The difficulty in 
regard to τρέχω entirely disappears, so far as the N. T. is concerned ; 
indeed, the Pres. Subj.' is even appropriate, as Paul is speaking of apos- 


1 That τρέχω is Indicative [as is assumed again by Bttm. Gramm. des N. T. Sprachgebr. 
§. 303 and even Mey. Aufl. 4] Usteri and Schott inferred from the fact that ἔδραμον 


§56, CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 505 


tolic activity, still continued. And the Pret. Indic. ἔδραμον would be 
justified by the assumption that Paul gave to the whole sentence the same 
turn of expression that he would have employed, had he uttered the words 
in a direct form: in order that I run not or have run (for might run, or 
might have run), cf. above, p. 288. Still simpler, however, is the inter- 
pretation now adopted by Fr., who takes the Preterite in a hypothetical 
sense, cf. Mtth. II. 1185; Hm. de partic. ἄν p. 54: ne forte frustra eucur- 
rissem (which might easily have been the case, had I not propounded my 
doctrine in Jerusalem), But of course, it is not allowable to refer ἀνεθέμην 
(as Fr. does) to an intention of Paul to instruct himself (for not the mere 
exposition of his views could have secured him from having run in vain, 
but only the assent of the apostles) ; on the contrary, Paul must have been 
satisfied in his own mind that his views were correct, and only have designed 
to obtain the very important declaration of the apostles in his favor, without 
which his apostolic labors for the present and the past would have been 
fruitless, see de Wette in loc. 

In 1 Thess. iii. 5 μήπως is construed with both Ingic. and Subjunct.: 
ἔπεμψα εἰς τὸ γνῶναι τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν, μήπως ἐπείρασεν ὑμᾶς ὃ πειράζων καὶ 
εἰς κενὸν γένηται ὃ κόπος ἡμῶν I sent to ascertain your faith, (fearing) 
lest haply the tempter have tempted you, and my labor be fruitless. The 
different moods here are obviously justifiable. The temptation (to waver 471 
in faith) might have already taken place; but whether the apostle’s labor ‘hed 
had been rendered fruitless by it depended on the result of the temptation, 
as yet not known to him, and might be dreaded as impending. Fr.’s 
interpretation (Opusc. Fritzschior. p. 176): ut... cognoscerem, an forte 
Satanas vos tentasset et ne forte labores mei irriti essent, appears to me 
harsh, as μήπως would thus be taken in two senses. And I can by no 
means admit that according to my interpretation the Fut. γενήσεται would 
be required instead of γένηται. On the contrary, the Fut. denoting an 
apprehension which cannot be verified, and in any event will not be verified 
at some definite future time, would be far too explicit. See also Hm. Soph. 
Aj. p. 48 and partic. ἄν p. 126 sq.; Mtth. IT. 1186. 

Note. Verbs of fearing are regularly followed by the simple μή, μήπως, 
etc. not by ἵνα μή: hence in Acts v. 26 ἵνα μὴ λιθασθῶσιν must not be 
connected with ἐφοβοῦντο τὸν λαόν, as is done by most expositors (even 
Mey.) ; but it is dependent, rather, on ἤγαγεν αὐτοὺς οὐ μετὰ Bias, and the 449 
words ἐφοβοῦντο yap τὸν λαόν are to be considered as parenthetical. Gth οὐ, 


3. The intensive οὐ μή (in reference to what in no wise will 528° 
or should take place)! is construed sometimes, and indeed most 


follows ; forgetting that two different moods, according to different conceptions, may 
be and sometimes are connected with one and the same particle. (See the passage to 
be quoted immediately : 1 Thess. iii. 5.) 
1Thus οὐ μή regularly refers to the future (Matt. xxiv. 21 ofa ob γέγονεν ... οὐδ᾽ 
ov μὴ γένηται). Moreover, it is now the prevalent opinion of scholars, that this idiom 
64 


506 § 56, CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 


frequently, with the Subjunct. Aorist, sometimes with the Sub- 
junct. Present (Stallb. Plat. rep. 1. 51, see below), and sometimes 
also with the Indic. Fut. (Bengel on Matt. v. 18 is mistaken), see 
Ast, Plat. polit. p. 365; Stallb. Plat. rep. IT. 36 sq.; Ellendt, Lexic. 
Soph. II. 409 sqq.; Gayl. p. 430sqq. The difference between the 
Subj. Aor. and the Fut. Indic. (which alone occur in the N. T.) 
is defined by Hm. Soph. Oed. Col. ver. 853 thus: Conjunctivo Aor. 
locus est aut in eo, quod jam actum est (see, however, Ellendt as 
above, p. 411 sq.), aut in re incerti temporis, sed semel vel brevi 


472 temporis momento agenda; Futwri vero usus, quem ipsa verbi 
ithe forma nonnisi in rebus futuris versari ostendit, ad ea pertinet, 


5 


quae aut diuturniora aliquando eventura indicare volumus aut 
non aliquo quocunque, sed remotiore aliquo tempore dicimus 
futura esse. The inquiry whether this distinction is observed in 
the N. T., is rendered difficult by the variations of MSS., of which, 
in many passages, some have the Indic. Fut., and some the Aor. 
Subj. So far as can be ascertained by the present apparatus of 
various readings, the Subj. is established in Matt. v. 18, 20, 26; 
x. 23; xviii. 3; xxiii. 39; Mark xiii. 2,19, 30; Luke vi. 37; 
xii. 59; xiii. 35; xviii. 17,30; xxi. 18; Jno. viii. 51; x. 28; 
xi. 26, 56; 1 Thess. iv. 15; 1 Cor. viii. 13 ; 2 Pet. i. 10; Rev. ii. 11; 
iii. 3,12; xviii. 7, 21f.; xxi. 25,27. There is a preponderance 
of evidence for the Subj. in Matt. xvi. 28; xxvi. 35; Mark ix. 41; 
xvi. 18; Luke i. 15; ix. 27; xviii. 7, 830; xxii. 68; Jno. vi. 35; 


9 viii. 12,52; xiii. 8; Rom. iv. 8; Gal. v.16; 1 Thess. v. 3. There 


is at least as much evidence for the Subj. .as for the Fut. in Mark 
xiv. 31; Luke xxi. 33; Matt. xv. 5; xxiv. 35; Gal. iv. 30; Heb. 
x. 17; Rev. ix. 6 (xviii. 14).1 The authorities decidedly favor 


is to be considered as elliptical: οὐ μὴ ποιήσῃ for ob δέδοικα or οὐ φόβος, οὐ δέος ἐστί 
(there is no fear) μὴ π. see Ast, Plat. polit. p. 365; Matthiae, Eurip. Hippol. p. 24; _ 
Sprachl. II. 1174; Hm. Soph. Oed. C. 1028; Hartung II. 156. This involves, indeed, 
the assumption that the Greeks lost sight of the origin of the expression ; for in many 
passages “ there is no fear that” is not appropriate, (in the N. T. Matt. v. 20; xviii. 3; 
Luke xxii. 16; Jno. iv. 48). Earlier Hm. (Eurip. Med. p. 390 sq.) had explained the 
phrase differently, cf. also Gayl. p. 402. The connective οὐδὲ μή (καὶ ob μή) occurs in 
the N. T. only in Rev. vii. 16 (var.), but frequently in the Sept. e.g. Exod. xxii. 21 ; 
xxiii. 13; Josh. xxiii. 7; and οὐδεὶς μή in Wisd. i. 8. Generally, οὐ μή is of very 
‘frequent occurrence in the Sept., and its prevalence may probably be referred to that 
effort after expressiveness, characteristic of the later language. The instances have 
been collected by Gayl. p. 441 sqq. It is not the fact, however, that in the N. T. 
(Hitzig, Joh. Marc. 8. 106) Mark and the Revelation display a predilection for οὐ μή. 
A concordance will prove the contrary. 
1 Tt must not be overlooked that sometimes the Future form may be occasioned in 
MSS. by a preceding or following Future, as in Jno. viii. 12 οὐ μὴ περιπατήσει ... GAX 
ἕξει. 


§ 56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 507 


the Fut. in Luke x. 19; xxii. 34; Jno. iv. 14; x.5. The Fut. is 450 
established (without var.) in Matt. xvi. 22 od μὴ ἔσται σοι τοῦτο bth οὐ 
(absit) ne tibi accidat hoc. Accordingly the Subj. is indisputably 
predominant in the N. T. (ef. Lob. Phryn. p. 722 sq.), and this is 

no less the case in Greek authors, see Hartung, Partik. 11. 156 f. 
Hermann’s rule on the whole does not apply to the N.T.; for 
although several passages might be interpreted in accordance with 

it, yet others in turn are at variance with it, and the Aor. is em- 
ployed where the Fut. should have been used, as e.g. 1 Thess. 

iv. 15 ὅτι ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι εἰς THY παρουσίαν τοῦ 
κυρίου οὐ μὴ φθάσωμεν τοὺς κοιμηθέντας, where the point of time 

is very definitely in mind viz. on the day of Christ's second coming ; 
and Heb. viii. 11, where in ov μὴ διδάξωσιν there is reference to a 
precise time (the Messianic period, vs. 10), and duration also is 
indicated, cf. Rev. xxi. 25. In fact, the Subj. Aor. in the sense 

of the Future had become usual in later Greek, cf. Lob. as above, 

p- 723; Thilo, Act. Thom. p. 57. Mdv. also 8. 127 discovers no 
perceptible difference between the Fut. and the Aor. in this con- 
struction. (Gayl. 440 sqq. has catalogued all the passages in the 
Sept. where ov μή occurs.) 


The statement of Dawes, however, which recognizes no difference of 
meaning between the Aor. and Fut. in this construction, but as respects 
the former allows only the 2d Aor. Act. (and Mid.) in Greek texts, has 
been almost universally rejected (see Mtth. 11. 1175 f.; Stallb. Plat. rep. 
II. 343; on the other hand, Bhdy. 402 f.), and cannot be applied to the 
N. T., where the Ist Aor. is as frequent as the 2d Aor. even in verbs 473 
that have a 2d Aor. in common use, (var. see Rey. xviii. 14). 7th ed. 
Sometimes οὐ μή is followed, according to a few Codd., by a Present 
Indic., viz. in Jno. iv. 48 ἐὰν μὴ σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα ἴδητε, οὐ μὴ πιστεύετε, and 
Heb. xiii. 5 Sept. οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλείπω ; indeed, one Cod. (quoted by 
Griesb.) has in Rey, iii. 12 the Optative, οὐ μὴ ἐξέλθοι. The last is un-1 24 
doubtedly only a mistake of a transcriber, misled by the ear (the case is 
different in the orat. obliq. in Soph. Philoct. 611, Schaef. in loc. ; cf. also 
the same on Demosth. II. 321), and the Subjunctive was long ago restored. 
Likewise in Heb. as above, ἐγκαταλίπω is undoubtedly the true reading. 
But in Jno. iv. 48 perhaps the reading ought to be πιστεύητε, as the Subj. 530 
Present is so used in Greek authors also, as in Soph. Oed. Col. 1024 οὗν 
ob μή ποτε χώρας φυγόντες τῆςδ᾽ ἐπεύχωνται θεοῖς (according to Hm. 
and others), Xen. C. 8,1, ὅ ; An. 2, 2,12 (see Hm. Eurip. Med. Elmsl. 
p- 390; Stallb. Plat. polit. p. 51; Ast, Plat. pol. p. 365), and, as in the 
passage from John, after a conditional clause with ἐάν in Xen. Hier. 11, 15 
ἐὰν τοὺς φίλους κρατῇς εὖ ποιῶν, ob μή σοι δύνωνται ἀντέχειν οἱ πολέμιοι, and 


508 § 57. INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES. 


frequently in Demosth. (Gayl. p. 437). In John, however, there is pre- 
ponderant MS. authority [to which Sin. must be added] for πιστεύσητε, 
which Lchm. and Tdf. have adopted. What Hm. Iphig. Taur. p. 102 
says of an Indic. Pres. after οὐ μή, the received text would hardly substan- 
tiate. As to Luke xviii. 7 see § 57, 3 and p. 494. 

This intensive οὐ μή is used also in dependent clauses: not merely in 

relative clauses Matt. xvi. 28; Luke xviii. 30; Acts xiii. 41, but also in 

451 objective clauses with ὅτι Luke xiii. 85; xxii. 16; Matt. xxiv, 34; Jno. 

Gib ol. xi. ὅθ τί δοκεῖ ὑμῖν, ὅτι od μὴ ἔλθῃ εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν ; what think ye? that he 
will not come to the feast? Likewise in direct question with ris, Rev. xv. 4 
τίς οὐ μὴ φοβηθῇ ; Cf. with the former passages, Xen. C. 8, 1,5 τοῦτο γὰρ 
εὖ εἰδέναι χρή, ὅτι οὐ μὴ δύνηται Κῦρος εὑρεῖν etc. Thuc. 5, 69 ; and with 
the latter, Neh. ii. 3 διὰ τί οὐ μὴ γένηται πονηρόν ete. On οὐ μή in an 
interrogative clause, without an interrogative pronoun, construed with a 
Subjunctive or a Future (Ruth iii. 1), see § 57, 3, p. 511 sq. 

Note. Not ..., no one..., nothing ... except, is commonly expressed by 
οὗ ..., οὐδείς ..., ovdev... εἰ μή, as in Matt. xi. 27; xxi.19; Luke iv. 26; 
Jno. xvii. 12, ete. (Klotz, Devar. p. 524). More rarely the negation is 
followed by πλήν, as in Acts xx. 23; xxvii. 22; ἤ is found only in Jno. 
xiii. 10 text. rec.: 6 λελουμένος οὐκ ἔχει χρείαν ἢ τοὺς πόδας νίψασθαι. Most 
Codd. have εἰ μή, and this Lchm. has adopted. The latter, however, may be 
a correction of the rarer 7, which yet occasionally occurs, Xen. C. 7, 5, 41. 


§57. INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES. — 


1. In the N. T., interrogative sentences (ef. Krii. 250 f.) which 
commence neither with an interrogative pronoun, nor with a 
special interrogative adverb (πῶς, ποῦ etc.), 

474 a. if direct, have usually no interrogative particle (Jno. vii. 23 ; 
Mth οἱ, xiii. 6; xix. 10; Acts xxi. 87; Luke xiii. 2; 1 Cor. v. 2; Rom. 
vi ii. 21; Gal. iii. 21, etc.).1 Sometimes, however, contrary to the 
usage of the written language of the Greeks, εἰ is employed before 
a question in which the inquirer merely discloses his uncertainty, 
without intimating that he expects a reply (see no. 2). 

Ὁ. if indirect, they are introduced by εἰ (which is here, too, the 


conditional conjunction).? 


1 Hence it is sometimes matter of dispute among commentators whether a particular 
sentence is to be taken as interrogative or not, 6.5. Jno, xvi. 31; Rom. viii. 33; xiv. 22; 
1 Cor. i. 13; 2 Cor. iii. 1; xii. 19; Heb. x. 2; Jas. ii. 4; or how many words are 
comprehended in an interrogation, e.g. Jno. vii. 19; Rom, iv. 1. On this, Grammar 
can ordinarily give no decision. 

2 How εἰ acquires the general force of an interrogative particle, see Hartung, Partik. 
IL. 201 ff. ; ef. Klotz, Devar. 508. 


§ 57. INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES. 509 


In direct double questions πότερον .. . ἤ is used only once, Jno. 

vii. 17 ; elsewhere the first question is without an interrogative 
particle, Luke xx, 4; Gal. i.10; iii. 2; Rom. ii. 8, etc., and only 
the second has 7, — if negative, ἢ οὔ Matt. xxii. 17; Luke xx. 22, 
or ἢ μή Mark xii. 14; ef. Bos, Ellips. p. 759; Klotz, Devar. 576sq. 
Sometimes, moreover, ἤ is used in an interrogative sentence which 
refers to a preceding categorical sentence (like the Latin an, see 
Hand, Tursell. I. 849) 2 Cor. xi. 7 εἰ καὶ ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ 
τῇ γνώσει... ἢ ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησα ἐμαυτὸν ταπεινῶν ; or did I 
commit an ‘fence! ? Rom. vi. 8 some C. 282, 20) etc. cf. Lehmann, 
Juucian. 11. 331 sq. 

2. The following are instances of the singular use of εἰ in direct 
questions (especially in Luke): Acts i. 6 ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν λέγοντες " 
κύριε, εἰ... ἀποκαθιστάνεις τὴν βασιλείαν ; Luke xxii. 49 εἶπον" 459 
κύριε, εἰ πατάξομεν ἐν μαχαίρᾳ ; Matt. xii. 10; xix.3; Luke xiii. 23; Sh οἱ. 
Acts xix. 2; xxi. 37; xxii. 25; Mark viii. 23 (on Matt. xx. 15 
see Mey.) ; cf. Sept. Gen. xvii. 17; xliii.6; 1 Sam. x. 24; 2 Sam. 

ii. 1; xx.17; 1 Kings xiii. 14; xxii. 6; Jon. iv. 4,9; Joel i. 2; 
Tob. v.5; 2 Mace. vii.7; Ruthi.19. Perhaps this use originated 
in an ellipsis: I should like to know (Mey. on Matt. xii. 10) ; ef. 
the indirect inquiry in German, 0b das wahr ist? But at the 
period of which we are treating εἰ had attained to all the rights of 
a direct interrogative (cf. Schneider, Plat. civ. I. 417), like the 
lat. an which later writers also use in direct question ; and it 
would be affectation to insist on taking εὖ as equivalent to the 
indirect an (Fr. Mt. p. 425; Mr. p. 327). The si by which this 532 
εἰ is rendered in the Vulgate has become in the same way a direct, 
from an indirect (Liv. 39, 50), interrogative particle. That even 
in Greek authors εἰ is sometimes used in direct questions (Hoogev. 
doctr. partic. I. 327) was asserted again by Stallb. Phileb. p. 117, 
- but denied correctly in regard to Attic prose by Bornem. Xen. 
Apol. p. 89sq., and Stallb. recalled his statement, Plat. Alcib. 
I. 231; cf., further, Herm. Lueian. conser. hist. p. 221; Fr. Mr. 
p- 828, and Klotz, Devar. 511. In the passage, Odyss. 1, 158, ad- 475 
duced by Zeune, Vig. p. 506, εἰ was long ago corrected into ἤ ; in Το 
Plato rep.5,478 ἃ. all good Codd. have ἐντός for εἰ, and in Aristoph. 
nub. 483 (Palairet, observatt. p. 60) εἰ does not mean num, but 
an in an indirect question. So also in Demosth. Callicl. p. 735 Ὁ. 
On the other hand, Dio Chr. 80, 299 εἴ τι ἄλλο ὑμῖν προςέταξεν, 
ἐπέστειλεν ἢ διελέχθη; where follows the answer: πολλὰ καὶ 
δαιμόνια ---- ἰδ probably corrupted (Reiske proposes ἦ τι ἄλλο), 


510 § 57. INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES. 


or it is to be taken as an indirect question: but if he gave you any 
other injunction? (may be asked, some one will perhaps ask). 
Schneider, even in Plat. civ. 4, 440 6., retains on manuscript 
authority εἰ, which recent editors had changed into (ἀλλ᾽) 4; but 
he explains this use of the particle in (only apparently) a direct 
question by an ellipsis, and has expunged the mark of interrogation. 
(Some have wanted to take ὅτι also as a direct interrogative in 
the N. T., but without sufficient reason, see ὃ 53, 10, 5 p. 456 sq.). 


The interrogative dpa is originally ἄρα strengthened, and in an inter- 

. Togative sentence, distinguished as such by the voice, denotes the conclusion 

from something preceding, whether a negative answer is expected (where 

dpa is equivalent to nwm igitur), or an affirmative (ergone) Klotz, Devar. 

180 sqq.' The former is the more usual in prose (Hm. Vig. 823), and 

occurs in the N. T. Luke xviii. 8 dpa εὑρήσει τὴν πίστιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ; will 

he then find faith on the earth? and dpaye Acts viii. 30, cf. Xen. Mem. 

3, 8, ὃ dpdye, ἔφη. ἐρωτᾷς pe, εἴ τι οἶδα πυρετοῦ ἀγαθόν ; οὐκ ἔγωγ᾽, ἔφη. On 

the other hand, in Gal. ii. 17 dpa might be rendered by ergone: Christ is 

therefore a minister of sin? (cf. Schaef. Melet. p. 89; Stallb. Plat. rep. 

458 II. 223; Poppo, Thue. IIT. I. 415). Others read ἄρα without a question ; 

6thed. this is nf a rae however, by the fact that Paul invariably makes a ques- 

tion precede μὴ γένοιτο, see Mey. in loc. 

To the interrogative particles, πῶς, πότε, ποῦ, etc., which are appropriated 

533 to direct questions, correspond, as is well known, in indirect questions 

(and discourse) the relative forms ὅπως, ὁπότε, ὅπου, etc. (Bttm. 11. 277). 

Even Attic authors, however, do not always observe the distinction (see 

Kiihner 11. 583; Hm. Soph. Antig. p. 80; Poppo, ind. ad Xenoph. Cyrop. 

under πῶς and ποῦ), and later writers neglect it frequently. In the N.T. 

the interrogative forms are predominant even in indirect discourse (πόθεν 

Jno. vii. 27, ποῦ Matt. viii. 20; Jno. iii. 8; on πῶς see Wuhl, Clay. 439). 
Ὅπου in the N. T. is employed rather as a strict relative. 


3. In negative interrogative sentences, 
a. οὐ where an affirmative answer is expected (Hartung, Partik. 
476 Il. 88) is commonly equivalent to nonne, as in Matt. vii. 22 οὐ 
ithe. τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι προεφητεύσαμεν; have we not? etc. xiii. 27; Luke 
xii. 6; xvii. 17; Jas. ii. 5; Heb. iii. 16; 1 Cor. ix. 1; ; xiv. 23. 
Sometimes, when the se ὑκή himself assumes a negative answer, 
ov is used with an expression of indignation and reproach, Acts 
xiii. 10 οὐ παύσῃ διαστρέφων τὰς ὁδοὺς κυρίου τὰς εὐθείας ; wilt thou 
not cease etc.? The tone employed indicates, as with us, the par- 
1A different view is taken by Lezdenroth, de vera vocum origine ac vi per linguar. 


comparationem investiganda (Lips. 1830. 8vo.) p. 59sqq. Further, see on ἄρα and 
dpa Sheppard in the Classical Museum, no. 18. 


§57. INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES, 511 


ticular cast of the question: Wixt thow not cease ? (i.e. thou wilt 
cease wilt’thou not?) is nonne desines? but, wilt thou not CEASE ? 
(i.e. wilt thou persist?) is non desines? The ov here negatives 
the verb (non desinere i. q. pergere), see Franke I. 15, Cf. Plut. 
Lucull. ¢. 40 οὐ παύσῃ σὺ πλουτῶν μὲν ὡς Κράσσος. ζῶν δ᾽ ὡς Aov- 
κουλλος, λέγων δὲ ὡς Κάτων ; So also Luke xvii. 18; Mark xiv. 60. 
— Οὐκ ἄρα in Acts xxi. 38 means non igitur, thou art not therefore 
(as I supposed, but as I now see denied) etc. Klotz, Devar. 186, 
(nonne, as the Vulgate renders it, would rather be, in connection 
with nevertheless, dp’ ov or οὔκουν, see Hm, Vig. 795, 824). 

b. Μή (μήτι) is used, when a negative answer is presumed or 
expected (Franke as above, 18).1 Jno. vii. 31 μὴ πλείονα σημεῖα 
ποιήσει ; surely he will not do more signs will he? (that is not 
conceivable), xxi. 5; Rom. iii. 5 (Philippi is incorrect), ix. 20 ; 
xi. 1; Matt. vii. 16; Mark iv. 21; Acts x. 47, etc. Both inter- 
rogatives are (in accordance with the above distinction) used con- 
secutively in Luke vi. 89 μήτι δύναται τυφλὸς τυφλὸν ὁδηγεῖν ; 
οὐχὶ ἀμφότεροι εἰς βόθυνον πεσοῦνται ; The assertion of Hm. (Vig. 
789), that μή sometimes anticipates an affirmative answer, has 
been contested by Franke 1. 6. and others; some interpreters, 
however, have wanted to take it so sometimes in the N. T. (Liicke, 
Joh. I. 602; cf. Fr. Mtth. p. 432). But the speaker always has 
his eye on a negative answer, and would not be surprised if he 
received such: Jno. iv. 833 has any one brought him anything to 534 
eat? (1 can’t believe it, especially here in the country of the 
Samaritans !), viii. 22: will he kill himself? (yet we cannot believe 
that of him), cf. Matt. xii. 23; Jno. iv. 29; vii. 26, 35. Occa- 454 
sionally there exists an inclination to believe what is asked; but "ἢ ὦ 
inasmuch as the question is put negatively, the speaker assumes 
the appearance, at least, of wishing a negative reply. Some have 
taken μή in the sense of nonne likewise in Jas. iii. 14 εἰ ζῆλον πικρὸν 
ἔχετε... μὴ κατακαυχᾶσθε καὶ ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας --- but 
incorrectly. The sentence is categorical: do not boast (of your 
Christian knowledge, vs. 13) against the truth. | When μὴ οὐ 
occurs in a question, od belongs to the verb of the sentence, and 
μή alone is interrogatory, as in Rom. x. 18 μὴ οὐκ ἤκουσαν; did 
they fail to hear? (i.e. it can’t be that they did not hear, can it ?) 
vs. 19; 1 Cor. ix. 4,5; xi. 22 (Judg. vi. 13; xiv. 3; Jer. viii. 4; 
Xen. Mem. 4, 2,12; Plat. Meno p. 89 c. and Lysias 213 d.; Acta 


Apocr. p. 79). On the other hand, ov μή is merely a strengthened 477 


1 As to the Latin num, see Hand, Tursell. p. 320. me 


512 § 58, THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS, 


form of a simple negation which may stand either interrogatively 
or not: Jno. xviii. 11 οὐ μὴ πίω αὐτό; shall I not drink it? Arrian. 
Epictet. 3, 22, 33, see ὃ 56, 8, 505 sq. 


Acts vii. 42 μὴ σφάγια καὶ θυσίας προςηνέγκατέ μοι ἔτη τεσσαράκοντα ἐν 
τῇ ἐρήμῳ ; (from Amos): did ye offer to me...in the wilderness? (ye did 
not, did ye?) ; the narrative then proceeds with καὶ dveAdBere, because the 
question implies: ye brought me no offerings for forty years and ye (even) 
took up etc. A different view is given by Fr. Mr. p. 66. On the other 
hand, see Mey. The passage in Amos has not yet been itself duly ex- 
plained. Perhaps the prophet follows a different tradition from that 
contained in the Pentateuch. As to Luke xviii. 7 see above, p. 494. 

In Matt. vii. 9 ris ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος, ὃν ἐὰν αἰτήσῃ ὃ vids αὐτοῦ ἄρτον, 
μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ ; two questions are blended: who ἐδ there among 
you that... would give? and, would one tf asked for ... give... (surely 
he would not give, would he)? Cf. Luke xi. 11 and Bornem. in loc. 

Note. As to Jno. xviii. 37 see, in particular, Hm. Vig. 794. Οὔκουν is 
non (nonne) ergo with or without a question, οὐκοῦν ergo (the negation 
being dropped). Now if we read the above passage interrogatively οὔκουμ 
βασιλεὺς εἶ σύ; it will mean, art thou then not a king? nonne ergo 
(Hm. Vig. 795) rex es? and the speaker thinks of an affirmative answer 
(after the words of Jesus ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμή etc.), see no. ὃ. But οὐκοῦν 
(as editors have it) βασιλεὺς εἶ σύ is simpler: thou art a king then, ergo 

535 rex es (perhaps with a touch of irony, see Bremi, Demosth. p. 238) with 
or without a question (Xen. Cyr. 2, 4, 15; 5, 2, 26.29; Aristot. rhet. 3, 
18, 14, etc.). Οὐκοῦν gets the meaning of therefore, then, accordingly 
because originally οὐκοῦν also was regarded as interrogative, thow art a 
king then? (is it not so? is that not true?), see Hm. Vig. p. 794 sq.; cf. 
Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 432 sq.!_ A question appears to me more suitable 
to the speaker as a magistrate, and Liicke has expressed the same opinion. 
At all events, οὐκοῦν cannot signify non ¢gitur, as Kiihnol and Bretschneider 
maintain ; in that case it would require to be written separately οὐκ οὖν. 





455 B. STRUCTURE OF PROPOSITIONS AND THEIR COMBINATION 
6th ed. INTO PERIODS. 


478 
τ ed, § 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS COMPONENT PARTS, IN GENERAL. 


1. The necessary parts of a simple sentence are Subject, Predi- 
cate, and Copula. As, however, the Subject and the Predicate 
may be supplemented and enlarged in a variety of ways by means 


1 Rost 742 and Gayl. p. 149 are opposed to distinguishing the words by means of 
accentuation. 


§ 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. 513 


of adjuncts; so again the Predicate is frequently, and the Subject 
sometimes, blended with the Copula. The limits of the Copula 
are never doubtful; but it may sometimes be uncertain which and 
how many words constitute the Subject or the Predicate, as in 
Rom. i. 17; 2 Cor. i. 17; xi. 18; xiii. 7. In this event we en- 
counter not a grammatical but a hermeneutical inquiry. 


The Infinitive (by itself), when it stands for the Imperative (Phil. 
iii. 16), see § 43, 5 p. 316, is not a complete sentence, because every gram- 
matical indication of the subject is wanting, which in other moods is given 
by the person of the verb. 


2. The Subject and the Predicate are regularly nouns (includ- 
ing Infinitives used as substantives, Phil. i. 22,29; 1 Thess. iv. 3); 
but sometimes whole clauses take their place: Luke xxii. 37 τὸ 
γεγραμμένον δεῖ τελεσθῆναι ἐν ἐμοί, τό" Kai μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη, 
1 Thess. iv. 1 παρελάβετε παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τὸ πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν, 
Matt. xv. 26 οὐκ ἔστιν καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων etc. ‘The 536 
case of the Subject (in independent sentences) is, as everybody 
knows, the Nominative, (in dependent the Accusative, Acc. with 
Inf.) ; yet the Partitive Genitive also may elliptically stand as the 
Subject, Acts xxi. 16 see 8 30, 8, note 2. On the other hand, the 
alleged use of ἐν as nota nominativi, in imitation of the Hebrew a 
essentiae, does not merit a moment’s consideration, and the latter 
itself is a grammatical figment; see § 29, note, p. 184. 


Deserving of distinct mention is the Predicate which consists of a Par- 
ticiple with the Article, as in Matt. x. 20 οὐ γὰρ ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ οἵ λαλοῦντες, 
Jno. v. 82; xiv. 28; Phil. ii. 13; Rom. viii. 33; Gal. i. 7, etc. ; this is to 
be carefully distinguished from the participle without the article, cf. Mtth. 
717; Fr. Rom. 11. 212 sq. 


8. The Copula, as is well known, regularly agrees with the 
Subject in number, the Predicate in number and gender; except 
that when the Predicate consists of a substantive it may differ in 
gender and number from the Subject, e.g. 2 Cor. i. 14 καύχημα 
ὑμῶν ἐσμέν, 1 Thess. 11. 20 ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἡ δόξα ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ χαρά, Jno. 479 
xi. 25 ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀνάστασις καὶ ἡ ζωή, viii. 12; 2 Cor. iii. 2; Rom. Τ᾿ 
vii. 13; Eph. i. 23 ἥτις (ἡ ἐκκλησία) ἐστὶ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ (see ὃ 24, 
3).3 1 Cor. xi. 7; Col. iv. 11. ; Luke xxii. 20.1 Yet deviations 456 
from the preceding rule occur, even in prose, when the writer pays *t «4 
more regard to the meaning of the subject than to its grammatical 


1 Instances in which the Neuter has a depreciatory force, as in 1 Cor. vi. 11 ταῦτά 
τινες ἦτε, grammatically considered, come likewise under this head. 
65 


514 §58, THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. 


form. This takes place more frequently in Greek than in Latin. 
Consequently 

a. A Singular Predicate (Copula) is joined to a Neuter Plural, 
mostly when the Subject is lifeless, and may be regarded as a mass 
(Bhdy. 418; Mtth. 761) ; as, Jno. x. 25 τὰ ἔργα... μαρτυρεῖ περὶ 
ἐμοῦ, 2 Pet. ii. 20 γέγονεν αὐτοῖς τὰ ἔσχατα χείρονα τῶν πρώτων, 
Acts 1. 18; xxvi. 24; Jno. ἰχ. ὃ; x. 21; iii. 23; xix. 81; Rev. 
vil. 3. But 

a) when prominence is to be given to the plurality and diver- 
sity of the objects (Weber, Demosth. p. 529), the Pred. is put 
in the Plural, as Jno. xix. 31 wa κατεαγῶσιν αὐτῶν (of the three 
persons crucified) τὰ σκέλη (previously ἵνα μὴ μείνῃ τὰ σώματα 
is used, cf. also vi. 13; Rev. xxi. 12; xx.7; Xen. Δη. 1, 7, 17); 
seldom otherwise, 1 Tim. v. 25 ta ἄλλως ἔχοντα (ἔργα) κρυβῆναι 
οὐ δύνανται, Rev. i. 19 ἃ εἶδες καὶ ἃ εἰσίν (but immediately 
afterwards ἃ μέλλει γίνεσθαι), Luke xxiv. 11 (not Rom. iii. 2, see 
§39,1a.). In 2 Pet. iii. 10 Sing. and Plur. are united. Likewise 

587 in Greek authors (Rost 475; Kiihner II. 50) the Plural of the 
verb is not unfrequently used, especially when instead of the Neut. 
another substantive, Masculine or Feminine, may be in the mind 
(Hm. Soph. Elect. p. 67; Poppo, Thucyd. I. I. 97 f. and Cyrop. 
p- 116; yet see Schneider, Plat. civ. I. 93) ; yet in other cases also, 
ef. Xen. Cyr. 2, 2,2; Anab. 1, 4, 4; Hipparch. 8,10; Thue. 6, 
62; Ael. anim. 11, 37; Plat. rep. 1, 353 ο. 

8) neuters, however, which denote or refer to animate objects, 
especially persons, are almost always construed with a Plural 
Pred. ; as, Matt. x. 21 ἐπαναστήσονται τέκνα ἐπὶ γονεῖς καὶ θανατώ- 
σουσιν αὐτούς, Jas. ii. 19 τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσιν καὶ φρίσσουσιν, 
Jno. x. 8 οὐκ ἤκουσαν αὐτῶν τὰ πρόβατα, Mark iii. 11; v. 13; 

‘ vii. 28; Matt. vi. 26; xii. 21; 2 Tim. iv. 17; Rev. iii. 2,4; xi. 18, 
18; xvi. 14; xix. 21 (Matt. xxvii. 52 πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμη- 
μένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθησαν, Rev. xi. 13). In other passages the Codd. 
vary remarkably, and there is a preponderance of authority for the 
Sing. in Mark iv. 4; Luke iv. 41; viii. 88; xiii. 19; Jno. x. 12; 
1 Jno. iv.1; Rev. xviii. 3; indeed, in Luke viii. 2 is found without 
var. ἀφ᾽ ἧς δαιμόνια ἐπ τὰ ἐξεληλύθει, Vs. 30 εἰςῆλθεν δαιμόνια πολλά, 
and in 1 Jno. iii. 10 φανερά ἐστιν τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὰ τ. τοῦ 

᾿ διαβόλου. Cf. also Eph. iv. 17 and Rom. ix. 8. The Sing. and 
Plur. are connected in Jno. x. 4 τὰ πρόβατα αὐτῷ ἀκολουθεῖ, ὅτι 

480 οἴδασιν τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ, 27 τὰ πρόβατα τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούει 

thet καὶ ἀκολουθοῦσί μοι, Rev. xvi. 14; οἵ, 1 Sam. ἰχ. 12. Lastly 


868. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. 515 


in Rev. xvii. 12 τὰ δέκα κέρατα δέκα βασιλεῖς εἰσίν the Plur. of the 
verb is more appropriate, on account of the Predicate noun, cf. 
1 Cor. x.11. The use of the Plural Pred. with animate Subjects 
is the rule in Greek authors also, cf. Xen. Cyr. 2, 3,9 τὰ ζῶα 
ἐπίστανται, Plat. Lach. 180 6. ra μειράκια ἐπιμέμνηνται, Thue. 1, 
58; 4,88; 7,57; Eur. Bacch. 677f.; Arrian. Alex. 3, 28, 11; 
5,17, 12; see Hm. Vig. 739. 


In general, the construction of Neuters with Plural verbs is more 
frequent in Greek prose authors than is usually supposed (though the 457 
Codd. vary noticeably), Reitz, Lucian. VII. 483 Bip.; Ast, Plat. legg. éth ed. 
p- 46; Zell, Aristot. Ethic. Nicom. p. 4 and 209; Bremi, exc. 10 ad Lys. 
p- 448 sq.; Held, Plutarch. Aem. Paull. p. 280; Ellendt, praef. ad Arrian. 
I. 21 sq.; Bornem. Xen. Cyrop. p. 173, but chiefly in later writers, and 
that without any distinction (Agath. 4,5; 9,15; 26,9; 28,1; 32,6; ° 
59,10; 42, 6, etc.; Thilo, Apocr. I. 182; Boisson. Psell. p. 257 sq.; Dresser, 
ind. to Epiphan. monach. p. 136). The proposal of Jacobs (Athen. p. 228, 
cf. also Heind. Cratyl. p. 137) to substitute the Singular in all such pas- 
sages was apparently retracted subsequently by that scholar himself (cf. 
Jacobs, Philostr. imag. p. 236), though where Codd. offer the Singular 538 
we may, with Boisson. Eunap. p. 420, 601, give it the preference. 

What was said of the Singular of the Pred. after Neuters applies only 
to the form of the verb; if the Predicate consists of eva: or γίνεσθαι with 
an adjective, the latter is oy in the Plur. while the verb is Sing., as in 
Gal. v.19 φανερά ἐστιν τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, 1 Cor. xiv. 25 τὰ severe τῆς 
καρδίας αὐτοῦ φανερὰ γίνεται. 

4. Ὁ. Collectives denoting animate objects are construed with 
a Plural Pred.: Matt. xxi. 8 ὁ πλεῖστος ὄχλος ἔστρωσαν ἑαυτῶν 
τὰ ἱμάτια (Mark ix. 15; Luke vi.19; xxiii. 1), 1 Cor. xvi. 15 
οἴδατε τὴν οἰκίαν Στεφανᾶ, bru... eis διακονίαν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἔταξαν 
ἑαυτούς, Rev. xviii. 4 ἐξέλθετε ἐξ αὐτῆς, ὁ λαός μου (Hesiod. scut. 
827), also ix.18 ἀπεκτάνθησαν τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀνθρώπων, Viii. 9 
(but Sing. viii. 8 ., 110 ; Luke viii. 37; Acts xxv. 24. Elsewhere 
the Plur. and the Sing. of the verb or Pred. occur in connection, as 
in Jno. vi. 2 ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ὄχλος πολύς, ὅτι EWPor (xii. OF., 
12f., 18), Luke i. 21 ἦν ὁ λαὸς προςδοκῶν καὶ ἐθαύμαζον, Acts 
xv. 12 (1 Cor. xvi. 15). The Plural, in reference to a Collective, 
occurs in Luke ix. 12 ἀπόλυσον τὸν ὄχλον, ἵνα ἀπελθόντες ... κατα- 
λύσωσι etc. When the Pred. consists of an adjective with εἶναι, 
the adjective is of course not only Plur. but also in the gender of 
the persons, as in Jno. vii. 49 ὁ ὄχλος οὗτος... ἐπάρατοί εἰσιν. 
On the other hand, attributives in such constructions may stand 
either in the Plur. or the Sing. ;— in the Sing. when they precede 


516 §58, THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. | 


the Substantive, as Mark ix. 15 πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος ἰδόντες ... ἐξεθαμβή- 
481 θησαν (Luke xix. 37 ; Acts v.16; xxi. 36; xxv. 24), Luke xxiii. 1 
the. ἀναστὰν ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος ἤγαγον αὐτόν. Yet in the N.T. the 
regular construction of Collectives with a Sing. Pred. is the more 
usual. The Plural construction often occurs in the Sept. also, as 
in Judg. ii. 10; Ruth iv. 11; 1 Sam. xii. 18 f.; 1 Kings iii. 2; 
viii. 66 ; xii. 12; Isa. li.4; Judith vi. 18 (λαός is almost invariably 
construed with a Plural verb), and it is by no means rare‘in Greek 
authors ; as, Her. 9, 23 ὥς ode τὸ πλῆθος ἐπεβοήθησαν, Philostr. 
her. p. 709 6 στρατὸς ἄθυμοι ἦσαν, Thue. 1, 20; 4,128; Ken. Mem. 
4,3,10; Aclian. anim. 5,54; Plutarch. Mar. p. 418c.; Pausan. 
T,9,3; see Reitz, Lucian. VI.533 Lehm; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p.446; 
Kriiger, Dion. H. p. 234; Poppo, Thue. III. I. 529sq.; Ellendt, 
Arrian. Alex. I. 105. 


458 Here belongs in the main also 1 Tim. ii. 15 σωθήσεται δὲ (ἡ γυνὴ) διὰ 

Gthed. τῆς rexvoyovias, ἐὰν μείνωσιν (ai γυναῖκες) ἐν πίστει, for ἧ γυνή which is to 

539 be supplied is to be understood of the whole sex. But in Jno. xvi. 82 ἵνα 
σκορπισθῆτε ἕκαστος εἰς τὰ ἴδια, the Plural verb is not the immediate pred- 
icate of ἕκαστος, but ἕκαστος is annexed to the Plural as explanatory, as 
in Acts ii. 6 ἤκουον εἷς ἕκαστος τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ, Rev. xx. 13 (vy. 8) 1 Pet. 
iv. 10; Acts xi. 29; see Hes. scut. 283; Aelian. anim. 15,5; Var. Hist. 
14, 46; Wesseling, Diod. Sic. II. 105; Brunck, Aristoph. Plut.784; Jacobs, 
Achill. Tat. p. 622. Similar to this is Acts ii. 12 and 1 Cor. iv. 6 ἵνα μὴ 
εἷς ὑπὲρ τοῦ evs φυσιοῦσθε κατὰ τοῦ érépov. On the other hand, in 
Acts ii. 3 a suggestion of the Singular subject for ἐκάθισε (for ἐκάθισαν is 
obviously a correction, to conform to ὥφθησαν) is contained in ἐφ᾽ ἕνα 
ἕκαστον αὐτῶν. Other instances of a transition from the Plur. of a verb 
to the Sing. have been collected by Heind. Plat. Protag. p. 499; Jacobs, 
Aelian. anim. II. 100. 

Collectives have influenced only the gender of the Pred. in Luke x. 13 
εἰ ἐν Τύρῳ καὶ Σιδῶνι ἐγενήθησαν ai δυνάμεις... πάλαι ἂν ἐν σάκκῳ καθή- 
μενοι (the inhabitants) μετενόησαν. 

Note 1. Some have thought that a preceding Sing. verb construed with 
a (Mase. or Fem.) Plural Subject (the schema Pindaricum, Mtth. 766; 
Hm. Soph. Trach. p. 86) occurs in Luke ix. 28 ἐγένετο ... dsel ἡμέραι ὀκτώ. 
But ἐγένετο is to be taken by itself, and dset ἡμέραι ὀκτώ as a detached 
expression of time inserted parenthetically, see § 62,2. On the other 
hand, in Luke ix. 18 εἰσίν is not construed with πλέον, but the latter is an 
unconnected insertion (cf. Xen. Anab. 1, 2, 11), and εἰσίν belongs to ἄρτοι. 
That the Imperat. ἄγε, which is nearly a pure interjection, is connected 
with a Plural subject without disturbing the construction, in Jas. iv. 13 
ἄγε viv of λέγοντες and v.1 ἄγε viv of πλούσιοι; is obvious. This 


usage is frequent in Greek prose authors, e.g. Xen. Cyr. 4, 2, 47; 5, 3, 4; 


858. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. 517 


Apol. 14; cf. Alberti, observ. on Jas. iv. 13; Palairet, observ. p. 502 sq. 3 
Wetsten. N. T. II. 676; Bornem. Xen. Apol. p. 52 (similar to which is 
the Latin age, Hand, Tursell. I. 205). Likewise φέρε is so used Himer. 
orat. 17, 6. 

Note 2. Here may be introduced also a remark, in passing, on the 
usage aceording to which a Plural verb and pronoun are employed by an 482 
individual speaker in reference to himself (Glass. I. 820 sqq.). The Th ed, 
communicative force is still manifest in Mark iv. 30 πῶς ὁμοιώσωμεν 
τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἢ ἐν τίνι αὐτὴν παραβολῇ θῶμεν; Ino. iii. 11. It 
occurs much more frequently in the Epistles (as among the Romans scrip- 
simus, misimus), where the author speaks in his apostolic character, as in 
Rom. i. 5; cf. vs. 6 (otherwise explained by van Hengel, Rom. p. 52), 
Col. iv. 3 cf. the immediately following δέδεμαι, Heb. xiii. 18 cf. vs. 19; 
Gal. i. 8. Only it is necessary to distinguish from this usage the case in 
which the writer really includes other persons, though it may be difficult 
in particular instances to specify when and what persons he means besides 
himself, and at any rate that cannot be determined on grammatical grounds. 540 
In Eph. i. 3 ff. and 1 Cor. iv. 9 the Plural proper is undoubtedly used. 459 
As to Jno. xxi. 24 see Mey. (In 1 Cor. xv. 31 according to the reading 6th ob 
καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ἀποθνήσκω, νὴ τὴν ἡμετέραν καύχησιν, ἣν ἔχω, the Sing. and the 
Plur. would be used together; but ὑμετέραν [which also Cod. Sin. gives] 
is here unquestionably to be preferred.) 


5. Such sentences as the following are not to be regarded as 
instances of grammatical discord between the Subj. and Pred. : 
Matt. vi. 84 ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς, 2 Cor. ii. 6 ἱκανὸν 
τῷ τοιούτῳ ἡ ἐπιτιμία αὕτη. The Neuters here are used as sub- 
stantives: ὦ sufficiency for such a one 18, like triste lupus stabulis 
(Virg. ecl. 3,80) a sad thing for the folds, (Ast, Plat. polit. p. 413; 
Hm. Vig. p. 699). Instances in Greek authors are: Her. 3, 36 
σοφὸν ἡ προμηθίη, Xen. Hi. 6, 9 ὁ πόλεμος φοβερόν, Diog. L. 1, 98 
καλὸν ἡσυχία, Xen. M. 2,3,1; Plat. legge. 4, 707 a.; Plut. paedag. 
4,3; Lucian. philops. 7; Isocr. Demon. p.8; Plat. conviv. p. 176d. ; 
Aristot. rhet. 2, 2,46 and eth. Nic. 8, 1, 8 ; Lucian. fug. 13; Plut. 
mul. virt. p. 225 Tauchn.; Aelian. anim. 2,10; Dio Chr. 40. 494; 
Sext. Emp. math. 11, 96. Cf. Georgi, Hierocr. I. 51; Wetsten. 
I. 337; Kypke, obs. I. 40; Fischer, Well. III. a. p. 310sq.; Elmsley, 
Eurip. Med. p. 237, ed. Lips.; Held, Plut. Timol. p. 367 sq.; Kiihner, 
Gr. Π. 45 ; Waitz, Aristot. categ. p. 292. In Lat. ef. Ovid. amor.” 
1, 9,4; Cic. off. 1,4; famil. 6, 21; Virg. eclog. 3,82; Aen. 4, 
569 ; Stat. Theb. 2, 899; Vechner, Hellenol. p. 247 sqq. (As to 
the rhetorical emphasis sometimes involved in this use of the 
Neuter, see Dissen, Demosth. cor. p. 396.) 


518 § 58, THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. 


Of a different sort, but also deserving of notice, is the construction in 
1 Pet. ii. 19 τοῦτο yap χάρις ; cf. τοῦτό ἐστιν ἀνάμνησις Demosth. and upon 
it Schaefer appar. V. 289; Herm. Lucian. conscr. hist. p. 305. 

6. If the Subject, or the Pedicate, or both, be compound (Mtth. 
760), the grammatical form of the Predicate is determined accord- 
ing to the following rules: 

a. If the Subject is composed of the 1st Person and 3d, the verb 
is put in the Ist Pers. Plur., as Jno. x. 80 ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσ μεν, 
1 Cor. ix. 6 ἢ μόνος ἐγὼ καὶ Βαρνάβας οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ete. 

483 (1 Cor. xv.11); Matt. ix. 14; Luke ii. 48 (Eurip. Med. 1020); 

the but in Gal. i. 8 we find ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται, 
the latter Subject being regarded as the more exalted, Isae: 11, 10. 
When, on the other hand, to the 2d Pers. is annexed a 3d, the 

541 former receives the preference as the more important, and the 
verb (which precedes) is put in the 2d Pers., as in Acts xvi. 31 
σωθήσῃ σὺ Kal ὁ οἷκός σου xi. 14. 

b. When the several Subjects Sing. are of the 3d Person, or are 
impersonal objects, 

a) the Pred., if it follows, is regularly put in the Plural, as in 
Acts iii. 1 Πέτρος καὶ ᾿Ιωάννης ἀνέβαινον, iv.19; xii. 25; xiii. 46; 
xiv. 14; xv. 35; xvi. 25; xxv. 13; 1 Cor. xv. 50; Jas. ii. 15; 
and its Gender is Masculine when there is a Masc. among the 
Subjects, 2 Pet. iii. 7. An adjective belonging to them all agrees 
sometimes only with the first or the principal Subject, as in Acts 
v. 29 ἀποκριθεὶς Πέτρος καὶ oi ἀπόστολοι εἶπαν ; in the opposite 
case, Acts iv. 19, the Adj. is in the Masculine when the nouns are 

460 of different sex, as Acts xxv. 18 ᾿Αγρίππας καὶ Βερνίκη κατήντησαν 

mae οσμ σὰ μενοι τὸν Φῆστον, Jas. ii. 15. When the disjunctive 
ἢ is used, a Singular Pred. also follows several Subjects, as in Matt. 
v.18; xii. 25; xviii. 8; Eph. v. 5. 

B) if the Pred. precedes, it is put either in the Plural, in case 
the author had in mind a plurality of Subjects, Mark x. 35 προς- 
πορεύονται αὐτῷ ᾿Ιάκωβος καὶ ᾿Ιωάννης, Jno, xxi. 2, hence with 
kal... καί or te... καί Luke xxiii. 12 ἐγένοντο φίλοι 6 τε Πιλᾶτος 
καὶ ὁ Ἡρώδης (Acts i. 13; iv. 27; ν. 24; xviii. 5), Tit. i. 15 
μεμίανται αὐτῶν Kal ὁ νοῦς Kal ἡ συνείδησις ; or in the Singular, if 

_.. the Subjects are to be conceived separately, 1 Tim. vi. 4 ἐξ ὧν 
γίνεται φθόνος, ἔρις, βλασφημίαι ete. Rev. ix. 17 (Thue. 1,47; Plat. 
Gorg. 503 e.; 517d.; Lucian. dial. mort. 26,1; Quint. inst. 9, 
4, 22); 1 Cor. xiv. 24 ἐὰν εἰςέλθῃ τις ἄπιστος ἢ ἰδιώτης (80 Com- 
monly when there is a disjunction by ἤ 1 Cor. vii. 15; 1 Pet. 


§58, THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. 519 


᾿ 


iv. 15) [17]; Αοίβυ. 88; .xx.4; 1 Cor. vii. 34; or only the first Sub- 
ject, usually as the principal one, is specially taken into consider- 

“ation, Juo. ii. 2 ἐκλήθη (καὶ) ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, iv. 53 ; 
viii. 52; xviii. 15; xx. 8; Acts xxvi. 30; Luke xxii. 14; Matt. 
xii. 3; Philem. 23; Rev. i. 3; xii. 7, etc.; Plat. Theag. 124e. ; 
Paus. 9, 18, 3; 9, 36,1; Ὦ. 5. exc. Vat. p. 25; Mdv.S.3f. In 
such case a predicate participle or adjective is put in the Plural, 
as in Luke ii. 88 ἦν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ Kai ἡ μήτηρ θαυμάζοντες, Rev. 
viii. 1. Cf.,in general, Herm. Vig. p.194; d’Orville, Charit. 497; 
Schoem. Isae. 462. When the Subjects are connected by 7 Greek 
authors usually employ the Plural of the verb, cf. Porson, Eurip. 
Hecub. p. 12, Lips. ; Schaef. Melet. p. 24 ; Schoem. Isae. p. 295 
(exactly as after ἄλλος ἄλλῳ and the like, see Jacobs, Philostr, 
Ρ. 377). The distinction which Matth. Eurip. Hec. 84; Sprachl. 
II. 768 set up, is not perceptible, at least in the N. T. (The Sing. 542 
is used quite regularly in the following arrangement, εἰ δὲ πνεῦμα 
ἐλάλησεν αὐτῷ ἢ ἄγγελος ... Acts xxiii. 9.) 

By means of this construction very decided prominence is imparted to 484 
one subject out of several in Jno. ii. 12 κατέβη εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ. αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ Tth ed. 
μαθηταὶ αὑτοῦ, iv. 12,53; Luke vi. 3; viii. 22; Acts vii. 15, and the pro- 
priety of using the Singular Pred. here is obvious. This mode of expression 
is of frequent occurrence in Hebrew (Gesen. Lehrg. 722), and (even in 
the form αὐτός τε καί or καὶ αὐτὸς καί Ruth i. 3, 6) is not rare in Greek 
authors, Matth. Eurip. Iphig. A. 875; Weber, Demosth. 261; Fr. Mr. 

p- 70, 420; ef. Demosth. Euerg. 688 a. εἰ διομεῖ ἐπὶ Παλλαδίῳ αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ 
γυνὴ καὶ τὰ παιδία etc. Alciphr. 1, 24 ὡς ἂν ἔχοιμι σώζεσθαι αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ γυνὴ 
καὶ τὰ παιδία. if 

T. When several Subjects or Predicates are united in a single 
proposition, the copulative particle is, according to the most simple 
construction, put before the last; whereas the disjunctive ἤ must 
stand before each of the successive words, as in Matt. vi. 31 τέ 
φάγωμεν ἢ τί πίωμεν ἢ τί περιβαλώμεθα ; Luke xviii. 29 ὃς ἀφῆκεν 
οἰκίαν ἢ γυναῖκα ἢ ἀδελφοὺς ἢ γονεῖς ἢ τέκνα. Even the copulative 
is sometimes used in this manner, as in Rom. ii. 7 τοῖς δόξαν καὶ 
τιμὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν ζητοῦσι, xi. 33; xii. 2 (Lucian. Nigr. 17), see 
Fr. Rom. II. 553. When such a series of words is introduced by 
ὡς, this particle is used but once, at the beginning; in 1 Pet. iv. 15, 
on the other hand, the repetition of ὡς before ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος 
‘separates this predicate from those that precede, and gives it inde- 
pendent prominence. The connecting particle is thus not unfre- 461 
quently repeated before each word of a whole series (polysyndeton), ™* δὰ 


520 §58, THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. 


a usage which is partly to be considered as merely an imitation 
of the Hebrew mode of expression (Ewald, krit. Gr. 650) Matt. 
xxiii. 23; Rev. xvii. 15; xviii. 12; xxi. 8, and partly seems to 
arise from an effort to secure due attention to the import of each 
word, as in Rom. vii. 12 ἡ ἐντολὴ ἁγία καὶ δικαία καὶ ἀγαθή, ix. 4 
ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ ai διαθῆκαι καὶ ἡ νομοθεσία καὶ ἡ 
λατρεία καὶ αἱ ἐπωγγελίαι, Luke xiv. 21 τοὺς πτωχοὺς καὶ ἀναπήρους 
καὶ τυφλοὺς καὶ χωλοὺς εἰςάγαγε, 1 Pet. i. 4 ; iii. 8; Jno. xvi. 8; 
Acts xv. 20, 29; xxi. 25; Phil. iv. 12; Rev. ii. 19; v. 12; vii. 9, 
12; viii. 5; Philostr. Apoll. 6, 24; D.S. exc. Vat. p. 32. Soin 
particular with proper names, Acts i. 13; xiii. 1; xx. 4; Matt. 
iv. 25; Jno. xxi. 2. On the other hand, the connective of the 
different parts of a single sentence is entirely omitted (asyndeton), 
a. In enumerations, 2 Tim. iii. 2 ἔσονται οἱ ἄνθρωποι φίλαυτοι, 
φιλάργυροι, ἀλάζονες, ὑπερήφανοι, βλάσφημοι etc., 1 Cor. iii. 12 
ἐποικοδομεῖ ἐπὶ τὸν θεμέλιον χρυσόν, ἄργυρον, λίθους τιμίους, ξύλα, 
χόρτον, καλάμην, 1 Pet. iv. 3; Heb. xi. 37; 1 Tim. 1. 10; iv. 18, 
15 (Cic. fam. 2,5; Attic. 18,13); Rom. i. 29 ff.; ii. 19; Phil. 
iii. 5; Jno. v. 3; 1 Cor. xiii. 4-8; xiv. 26 ; 2 Cor. iv. 8 f.; Jas. v. 6; 
543 1 Pet. ii. 9; Matt. xv. 19 (Col. iii. 11 is peculiar). Similar are 
Demosth. Phil. 4 p. 54 a. and Pantaen. p. 626 ἃ. ; Plat. Gorg. 
Ρ. 508e.; 517 d.; rep. 10 p. 598 ο.; Lycurg. 36,2; Lucian. dial, 
mort. 26, 2; Heliod. 1, 5. 
b. In parallelisms and antitheses, which thus receive additional 
prominence, 2 Tim. iv. 2 ἐπίστηθι εὐκαίρως ἀκαίρως (like nolens 
485 volens, honesta turpia, digni indigni, ἄνω κάτω, Aristoph. ran. 157 
ἀνδρῶν γυναικῶν, Beier, Cic. off. 1.185; Kritz, Sall. I. 55; 11. 828), 
1 Cor. iii. 2 γάλα ὑμᾶς erotica, od βρῶμα, vii. 12; Jno. x. 16; 
Jas.i.19. Yet asyndeton in such cases is not necessary, Col. ii. ὃ ; 
1 Cor. x. 20; cf. Fr. Mr. p. 81 sq. who, however, has drawn a 
distinction between the two modes of expression which seems to 


me too subtile. 
+ 


When some of the Subjects are in the Plural, the verb following is put 
in the Plural, Acts v. 17,29. This, however, seems not to be indispensable, 
Diod. 5. 20, 72 δάκρυα καὶ δεήσεις καὶ θρῆνος ἐγένετο συμφορητός, Xen. 
rep. Ath. 1, 2. 

Note. When several substantives either in the Subject or the Predicate 
are connected by καί, the first sometimes denotes an individual compre- 
hended in the second as its genus, as Ζεύς καὶ θεοί. After the second, 
therefore, λοιποί was supplied; but the intention of the expression is to 
give prominence to the individual as the principal subject, as in Acts v. 29 


a 


§ 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. 521 


ὃ Πέτρος καὶ of ἀπόστολοι (Theodoret. III. 223; see Schaef. Sophocl. II. 
814, 335), i. 14; Mark xvi. 7; Matt. xvi. 14 (yet see Mey. in loc.) cf. 
Mark x. 41. 

This schema κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν (Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 221) is an established idiom 
in Greek authors, cf. Plat. Protag. p. 310d. ὦ Zed καὶ θεοί (Plaut. capt. 
5,1,1; Jovi diisque ago gratias), Iliad. 19, 63 “Ἕκτορι καὶ Τρωσί, Aeschin. 
Timarch. p. 171 ο. Σόλων ἐκεῖνος, ὃ παλαιὸς νομοθέτης, καὶ 6 Δράκων καὶ ot 
κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους ἐκείνους νομοθέται, Aristoph. nub. 412 (Chrysippus et 
Stoici Cic. Tusc. 4, ὅ, 9), see Ast, Theophr. char. p. 120; Stallb. Plat. 462 
Protag. p. 25. On Eurip. Med. 1141, which Elmsley adduced in support δι ed, 
of this idiom, see Hm. Med. p. 392 ed. Lips., besides Locella Xen. Ephes. 
p- 208. (Of a different yet kindred nature is the Latin phrase exercitus 
equitatusque, Caes. b. gall. 2, 11.) 


8. If two predicative verbs have a common object, and both 
verbs govern the same case, the object is expressed only once, as 
in Luke xiv. 4 ἰάσατο αὐτὸν καὶ ἀπέλυσεν, Matt. iv. 11. In Greek 
authors, too, the object is regularly but once expressed even when 
the verbs govern different cases, Krii. 227. In the N.T., when 
the verbs govern different cases, the object is usually repeated in 
the form of a pronoun, as in Luke xvi. 2 φωνήσας αὐτὸν εἶπεν αὐτῷ, 
yet cf. Acts xiii. 3 ἐπιθέντες τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῖς ἀπέλυσαν, Eph. v. 11 544 
μὴ συγκοινωνεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς ἀκάρποις, μᾶλλον δὲ ἐλέγχετε, 

2 Thess, iii. 15; 1 Tim. vi. 2, see § 22, 1 p. 148, 

9. Of the three constituent parts of a proposition, the subject 
and the predicate are indispensable; but the simple copula is im- 
plied in the mere juxtaposition of the subject and predicate: ὁ θεὸς 
σοφός (which in Greek can only mean, God is wise). The same 
holds also when the subject and the predicate are extended, as in 
Heb. v.13 πᾶς ὁ μετέχων γάλακτος ἄπειρος λόγου δικαιοσύνης, 2 Cor. 

i. 21; Rom. xi. 15; see ὃ 64,2. But as the predicate is usually 
blended with the copula, so the subject may be implied in the 486 
copula, or in the blended copula and predicate. This takes place, "4 
independently of any special context, 

a. When the verb is in the Ist or 2d Pers. (where the subjects 
are conceived as present, Mdv. p. 6) usually, as in Jno. xix. 22 ὃ 
γέγραφα, γέγραφα, Rom. viii. 15 οὐκ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα δουλείας, as 
here even the pronouns ἐγώ, σύ are expressed only when emphasis 
is intended, see § 22, 6. If now the name of the subject be 
annexed to the pronoun of the 1st or 2d Pers., as in Gal. v. 2 ἐγὼ 
Παῦλος λέγω ὑμῖν (Eph. iii.1; Rom. xvi. 22; 2 Cor.x.1; Philem. 
19; Rev. i. 9; xxii. 8, etc.), Gal. ii. 15 ἡμεῖς φύσει ᾿Ιουδαῖοι... 

66 


522 § 58, THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. 


εἰς Χριστ. “Ino. ἐπιστεύσαμεν (2 Cor. iv. 11) Luke xi. 39, the 
adjunct is in apposition. 

b. When the verb is in the 3d Pers. (impersonally), and then 

a) a Plur. Active is used, if merely (acting) subjects generally 
are meant (Mdv. 8.7); Matt. vii. 16 μήτι συλλέγουσιν ἀπὸ ἀκαν- 
dav σταφυλήν ; do they (people) gather etc., does one gather ete. 
Jno. xv. 6; xx. 2; Mark x.13; Acts iii. 2; Luke xvii. 23; Rev. 
xii. 6. See Fischer, Weller. Ill. I. 8347; Duker, Thucyd. 7, 69; 
Bornem. Schol. p. 84. 

8) a Sing. Active, when no definite subject is meant (Mdv. 
8. 7) of which the verb is predicated, but only the action or con- 
dition is designated as a fact: ὕει, βροντᾷ (Jno. xii. 29 “βροντὴ 
γίνεται) it rains, etc. (cf. Germ. es ldutet), 1 Cor. xv. 52 σαλπίσει. 
there will be a sound of trumpets, also 2 Cor. x. 10 ai ἐπιστολαί, 
φησί, βαρεῖαι, it is said (Wisd. xv. 12). Yet, according to the 
concrete conception of the Greeks, this idiom may, strictly, be 
elliptical: ὕει, βροντᾷ Ζεύς (Xen. H. 4, 7, 4), σαλπίσει ὁ σαλ- 
πιγκτής, like the ἀναγνώσεται of the orators, see § 64, 3. On (the 
parenthetical) φησί, not infrequent in Greek authors, see Wolf, 
Demosth. Lept. p. 288; Wyttenbach, Plut. mor. IT. 105; Boisson. 

463 Eunap. p. 418, (in Latin inquit, ait is similar, see Heindorf, Horat. 

δὲ} el. sat. p. 146 ; Ramshorn, Gramm. S. 383). 

545 ) More frequently, however, in such impersonal sense a Sing. 
Passive is used (Mdy. 8, 8), as in 1 Cor. xv. 42 σπείρεται ἐν φθορᾷ, 
ἐγείρεται ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ (see v. Hengel in loc.), 1 Pet. iv. 6 εἰς τοῦτο 
καὶ νεκροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη etc., Matt. vii. 2, 7; v. 21, etc. This form 
is connected with the 3d Pers. Plur. Active in a parallelism in 
Luke xii. 48 ᾧ ἐδόθη πολύ, πολὺ ξητηθήσεται παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ @ 
παρέθεντο πολύ, περισσότερον αἰτήσουσιν αὐτόν." 

The forms of quotation, λέγει 2 Cor. vi. 2; Gal. iii. 16; Eph. iv. 8 ete., 
φησί 1 Cor. vi. 16; Heb. viii. 5, εἴρηκε Heb. iv. 4 (cf. the rabbinic “a1, 
see Surenhus. βιβλ. καταλλ. p. 11), μαρτυρεῖ Heb. vii. 17 (εἶπε 1 Cor. xv. 27), 
were probably never intended by the N.T. writers to be taken imper- 

487 sonally ; but for the most part the Subject (6 θεός) is directly or indirectly 

Tthed, contained in the context. In 1 Cor. vi. 16 and Matt. xix. 5, however, in 
connection with φησί and εἶπεν there is an apostolic ellipsis (of 6 θεός). 
Lastly, in Heb. vii. the best authorities [Sin. also] give μαρτυρεῖται. 

There is nothing at all impersonal in Jno. xii. 40 (one acquainted with 


1 It cannot, however, be inferred from this that the 3d Plural Active strictly has a 
Passive sense (as in Chald., see my Gram. § 49), for even in Luke xii. 20 ἀπαιτοῦσιν 
may be taken concretely ; see Bornem. in loc. 


§ 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 523 


the Scriptures easily supplies ὃ θεός), 1 Cor. xv. 25 (θῇ scilicet Χριστός 
from αὐτόν), Rom, iv. 8, 22 ἐπίστευσεν "ABp. τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς 
δικαιοσύνην 86. τὸ πιστεῦσαι from ἐπίστευσ.; Jno. vil. 51 ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσῃ where 
ὃ νόμος is to be repeated, which is personified as a judge; in 1 Jno. v. 16 
from αἰτήσει the word αἰτούμενος (θεός) might be supplied as the Subject 
of δώσει (Liicke) more suitably than airév; lastly, in Heb. x. 38 ἐὰν 
ὑποστεΐληται it would perhaps be most simple to educe the general term 
ἄνθρωπος from 6 δίκαιος. 

The Predicate is involved in εἶναι when it signifies existere, Matt. 
xxiii. 30 εἰ ἤμεθα ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῶν πατέρων etc., Jno. viii. 58; Rev. xxi. 1 
ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι. In this sense adverbs are then annexed for closer 
specification in 1 Cor. vii. 26 καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ οὕτως εἶναι. 


859. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE IN ITS SUBJECT AND 
PREDICATE: ATTRIBUTIVES, APPOSITION. 


1. The Subject and the Predicate of a proposition may be ex- 
tended in a great variety of ways by adjuncts: And first of all 
attributively, most commonly by means of adjectives, see no. 2, 
Personal nouns in particular which denote office, character, etc., 
receive, with little extension of signification, general personal 546 
attributives in the substantives ἄνθρωπος, ἀνήρ, γυνή etc. (Mtth. 
967) Matt. xviii. 23 ὡμοιώθη ... ἀνθρώπῳ βασιλεῖ, xiii. 45; xx. 1; 
xxi. 33 (lliad. 16, 263 ἄνθρωπος ddirns, Xen. Cyr. 8, 7,14; Plato, 
Gorg. 518 ¢.); Acts iii. 14 ἠτήσασθε ἄνδρα φονέα χαρισθῆναι ὑμῖν, 

i. 16; Luke xxiv. 19 (Plat. lon. p. 540d. ἀνὴρ στρατηγός, Thuc. 464 
1,74; Palaeph. 28,2 ἀνὴρ ἁλιεύς, 38,2; Plat. rep. 10, 620 b. ; Xen, bth ed 
Hi. 11,1; see Fischer ind. ad Palaeph. sub ἀνήρ, Vechner, Hellenol. 

Ρ. 188. Cf. on the Hebrew idiom, my Simonis p. 54.). On the 
other hand, in 1 Cor. ix. 5 γυναῖκα is to be taken predicatively ; it 
would be wrong, also, to refer to this head passages in which the 
attributive is strictly an adjective, as in Actsi. 11; xvii. 12; xxi. 9 
(Nep. 25, 9); Jno. iv. 9. In the addresses ἄνδρες ᾿Ισραηλῖται 
Acts ii. 22, ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι xvii. 22; xix. 35 the emphasis lies on 
ἄνδρες, and renders the address one of respect (cf. Xen. An. 3, 2, 

2). Similar forms of address are frequent in the Greek orators. 

2. Adjectives (and participles) annexed to substantives attrib- 
utively to supplement their meaning regularly stand after them, 
Luke ix. 37 συνήντησεν αὐτῷ ὄχλος πολύς, Rev. xvi. 2 ἐγένετο ἕλκος 488 
κακὸν καὶ πονηρόν, Matt. iii. 4; Jno. ii. 6; 2 Tim. iv. 7 τὸν ἀγῶνα Τὰ οἱ, 
τὸν καλὸν ἠγώνισμαι, Luke v. 36 ff.; Phil. iv. 1; Rev. vi. 12, 13, 
since the thing itself presents itself to the mind before its Predi- 


§24 ὃ ὅθ. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 


syjor Cate. When, however, the adjective is to receive any degree of 
prominence, as directly or indirectly antithetical, it is put before 
the substantive; and this is peculiarly frequent in the didactic style: 
Matt. xiii. 24 ὡμοιώθη ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ἀνθρώπῳ σπείραντι 
καλὸν σπέρμα (vs. 25 ἔσπειρεν ζιζάνια), Luke viii. 15 τὸ (πεσὸν) ἐν 
τῇ καλῇ γῇ (vss. 12, 18, 14); Jno. ii. 10 πρῶτον τὸν καλὸν οἶνον 
τίθησιν, καὶ ὅταν μεθυσθῶσιν, τότε τὸν ἐλάσσω (Rom. i. 23; xiii. 8; 
Mark i. 45; Matt. xii. 835); 1 Cor. ν. 6 ὅτε μικρὰ ζύμη ὅλον τὸ 
φύραμα Cvupot (Jas. iii. 5); 1 Pet. iv. 10 ἕκαστος καθὼς ἔλαβεν 
χάρισμα eis ἑαυτοὺς αὐτὸ διακονοῦντες ὡς καλοὶ οἰκονόμοι (the κακοὶ 
ox. do not do so), Heb. x. 29 (cf. vs. 28); viii. 6; Rom. vi. 12 
μὴ βασιλευέτω ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐν τῷ θνητῷ ὑμῶν σώματι (just because 
the σῶμα is θνητόν, it would be absurd to allow such dominion), 
2 Pet. i. 4; Mark xiv. 6; Heb. ix. 11,12; 1 Tim. i. 19; 1 Cor. 
v. 7; 2 Cor. v.1; 1 Pet. iv. 10,19. Hence in the apostolic dic- 
tion καινὴ κτίσις, καινὸς ἄνθρωπος, and for the most part ἡ καινὴ 
διαθήκη. But even the adjective put after the substantive may be 
emphatic when made prominent by the article, Jno. iv. 11 πόθεν 
ἔχεις τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ζῶν; x. 11 ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός, or when 
placed at the end of the sentence, as in Mark ii. 21 οὐδεὶς... ἐπι- 
ράπτει ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον παλαιόν, Jno. xix. 41; Mark xvi. 17 γλώσσαις 
547 λαλήσουσι Kawais. In one and the same verse we find an adjective 
preceding and another following the substantive, Tit. iii. 9 μωρὰς 
ζητήσεις... μάχας νομικάς. In general, it must not be forgotten 
that it often depends on the writer whether he will emphasize the 
adjective or not. Thus in Jno. xiii. 34; 1 Jno. ii. 7, 8 καινὴν 
ἐντολήν might have been put in distinct antithesis to the old com- 
__.¢. mandments, but the Apostle says ἐντολὴν καινήν, a commandment 
~ .\- which is new. In Rev. iii. 12 we find τῆς καινῆς ‘Iepove. but xxi. 2 
“Iepove. καινήν; and in 2 Pet. iii. 13 καινοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ γῆν καινήν, 
it was sufficient to emphasize the adjective by position merely the 
first time. In Acts vii. 86; Heb. xi. 29 we find ἐρυθρὰ θάλασσα, 
but in the Sept. frequently θάλασσα ἐρυθρά. 


When two or more adjectives connected by καί belong to one substantive, 

they are put before or after it, in accordance with the preceding distinc- 
465 tions, as in 1 Tim. ii. 2 ἵνα ἤρεμον καὶ ἡσύχιον βίον διάγωμεν, Matt. xxv. 21 
ih ed. δοῦλε ἀγαθὲ καὶ πιστέ, Luke xxiii. 50 ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς καὶ δίκαιος, Acts xi. 24; 
Rev. iii. 14; xvi, 2. Such arrangements of words as in Matt. xxiv. 45 

ὃ πιστὸς δοῦλος καὶ φρόνιμος, Heb. x. 34, are to be accounted for by the 
circumstance, that the writer afterwards introduces a second adjective to 
complete the sense, or has reserved it for the end of the sentence for the 


sake of force. 


859. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 525 


3. Two or more adjectives regularly are connected by καί and 
joined to their substantives, 1 Pet. i. 4 εἰς κληρονομίαν ἄφθαρτον 
καὶ ἀμίαντον καὶ ἀμάραντον, vs. 19; 2 Pet. ii. 14 etc. When the 
copula is omitted, it is either because the intention of the writer 
is to enumerate single qualities separately deserving of attention 
(8 58, 6) 1 Tim. iii. 2ff. δεῖ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίληπτον εἶναι, 
νηφάλιον, σώφρονα, κόσμιον ete. Tit. i. ὁ ; ii. 4 f.; Phil. ii. 2; Rev. 
v. 1 (Jobi. 8) see § 58,7, perhaps with climax Luke vi. 88 (Mtth. 
998); or because one of the adjectives is more closely related to 
the substantive, and forms with it as it were one notion, 1 Pet. 
i. 18 ἐκ τῆς ματαίας ὑμῶν ἀναστροφῆς πατροπαραδότου, Jno. xii. 3 
μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς πολυτίμου, Where vdpdos πιστική designates, 
commercially as it were, a certain sort of spikenard, which is 
then declared to be πολύτιμος, Jno. xvii. 3 ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν 
μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν, Gal. i. 4; 1 Cor. x. 4; Rev. i. 16; ii. 12; xii. 3; 
xv. 6; xx. 11, (which is sometimes obvious from the mere position 
of the words, as in Jno. vii. 37 ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ TH μεγάλῃ 
τῆς ἑορτῆς, Heb. ix. 11). Of. Her. 7, 23 σῖτος πολλὸς ἐφοίτα ἐκ 
τῆς ᾿Ασίας ἀληλεσμένος, Dion. H. IV. 2097 συναγαγόντες ἰδιωτικὸν 
συνέδριον πατρικόν, see Mtth. 998; Dissen, Pindar. ed. Goth. 508 sq.; 
Hm. Eurip. Hee. p. 54; Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 807 ; Bornem. Xen. 
Cyr. p. 71; cf. (Nep. 25, 9,14; Cic. parad. 5, 2) Kritz, Sallust. 
Jug. 112. (When the second Predicate is a real participle, a 
connecting καί is of course not to be expected, Acts xxvii. 6 
εὑρὼν πλοῖον ᾿Αλεξανδρῖνον πλέον eis τὴν ᾿Ιταλίαν, Mark xiv. 15; 


Rev. x. 1.) 


When πολύς is annexed to a substantive that already has an adjective, 
it will either be construed according to the preceding rule, as in Jno. x. 32 
πολλὰ καλὰ ἔργα ἔδειξα, 1 Tim. vi. 9, or written as in Acts xxv. 7 πολλά 
te καὶ βαρέα αἰτιώματα, where the word expressing the quality is made 
prominent : many and (that, too,) heavy ete. Cf. Her. 4,167 ; 8,61; Xen. 
Mem. 2, 9,6; Lys. 26,1, see Mtth. 998. Under this head come also 
Jno. xx. 30 πολλὰ καὶ ἄλλα σημεῖα (but xxi. 25 ἄλλα πολλά), and Luke 
iii. 18 πολλὰ καὶ ἕτερα (which is not unknown also in Greek authors, see 
Kypke on the first passage) many and other, for which we say many other. 


4. From the natural rule, that an adjective must agree with its 
substantive in gender and number, there is sometimes a deviation, 
when the writer allows regard for the thought to prevail over that 
for the grammatical form. That is 

a. Neuter or Feminine substantives that signify persons have 
Masculine adjectives joined to:them (Hm. Vig. p. 715), Rev. 


489 
th ed, 


548 


526 § 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 


xix. 14 τὰ στρατεύματα.... ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ... ἐνδεδυμένοι 

βύσσινον λευκὸν καθαρόν, ν. 6; Eph. iv.17,18; 1 Cor. xii.2; Mark 

ix. 26 (Xen. Mem. 2, 2, 8 αἱ πόλεις... ὡς παύσοντες, Cyr. 1, 2, 

466 12; 7, 8, 8; Joseph. antt. 6, 11,6; of, Liv. 7, 2; still more bold 

6th αἱ. js shame L 267 extr. Jebb. ἅμα καὶ σπονδὴ τῶν ἑκατέρωθαι 

μεγίστων πόλεων, καλούντων τι ὡς αὐτούς), Rev. xi. 15 ἐγένοντο 

φωναὶ μεγάλαι... λέγοντες (Υ. 18 1.); iv. 8 τὰ τέσσαρα ζῶα, ἕν 

εὐ “καθ᾽ ἕν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ... καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν 

ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντες. 

In Bpe iv. 18 anid sae does not belong to the subordinate clause 

490 καθὼς καὶ τὰ ἔθνη, but to ὑμᾶς ; and 2 Jno. 4 εὕρηκα ἐκ τῶν τέκνων σου 
Τὰ οἱ. περιπατοῦντας only borders upon the above usage. 


Ὁ. Collectives (ef. § 58, 4) in the Sing. sometimes have adjec- 
tives after them in the Plural, as in Acts v.16 συνήρχετο τὸ 
πλῆθος τῶν πέριξ πόλεων ‘Tep. φέροντες ἀσθενεῖς etc. (xxi. 36; Luke 
xix. 87; οἵ, Diod. 8S. 5,43; Xen. Eph. 1, 3; Palairet, obsery. 
Ῥ. 201) ; iii. 11 συνέδραμεν πᾶς ὁ λαὸς... ἔκθαμβοι, Jno. xii. 12; 
Rev. vii. 9; xix. 1 (Philostr. Apoll. 2,12); Luke ii. 13 πλῆθος 

549 στρατιᾶς οὐρανίου αἰνούντων τὸν θεόν etc. On the other hand, 

+ in Rev. iii. 9 τῶν λεγόντων is not an epithet of συναγωγῆς, but to 
be taken partitively. The ΒΙΠΕ. and Plural connected, occur in 
Mark viii. 1 παμπόλλου ὄχλου ὄντος Kal μὴ ἐχόντων, τί φάγωσι, 
Acts xxi. 86; cf. Diod. S. 14, 78 τοῦ πλήθους cuvtpéyovTos .. . καὶ 
τοὺς μισθοὺς πρότερον ἀπαιτούντων, Virg. Aen. 2, 64 undique visendi 
studio Trojana juventus circumfusa ruit certantque illudere capto. 
Further, see Poppo Thue. I. 102 sq.; Bornem. Xen. Apol. p. 36; 
Anab. p. 884 ; Jacobs, Anthol. pal. III. 811; Hm. Lucian. conser. 
hist. p. 801; Ast, Plat. legg. p. 103 sq.; Mtth. 976 f. 


Noteworthy is the connection of two genders in Rev. xiv. 19 ἔβαλεν «is 
τὴν ληνὸν τοῦ θυμοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν μέγαν, as even Tdf. reads, (ληνός is some- 
times Masc., Sept. Gen. xxx. 38, 41, αι.).} But in Acts xi. 28 Luke 
undoubtedly wrote λιμὸν μεγάλην ... ἥτις, see Bornem. in loc. In Phil. 
ii. 1 all recent editors [with the exception of Lchm. and Tdf. 7th ed.] have 
substituted εἴ τινα for εἴ τις σπλάγχνα. 


5. When an adjective refers to two or more substantives of 
different genders or numbers, it is 
a. Usually repeated with each substantive, as in Mark xiii. 1 ἴδε 


1 Liicke (Apokal. II. 464) wants either to read with a single Codex τοῦ μεγάλου 
(which is probably a correction), or to assume a constructio ad sensum, the writer in 
using τὸν μέγαν having thought only of θυμὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. Liicke himself confesses that 
the latter assumption is pretty violent and harsh. See also Matthdi’s small edition, p. 63. 


859. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 527 


ποταποὶ λίθοι καὶ ποταπαὶ οἰκοδομαί, Jas. i. 11 πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ 
καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον, Rev. xxi. 1 οὐρανὸν καινὸν καὶ γῆν καινήν, 
Jno. xi. 88 .;. Acts iv. 7; 1 Cor. xiii. 2; Eph. i. 21; 1 Pet. ii. 1: 
2 Pet. iii. 18 (3 Esr. iii. 5); ef. Aristot. Nicom. 7, 9,1; Demosth. 
pac. 23b. Or ; 

b. Used only once: preceding, in the gender and number of 
the first substantive, Luke x. 1 εἰς πᾶσαν πόλιν καὶ τόπον, 1 Thess. — 
v. 23; Rev. xiii, 7; vi. 14; vii. 9; cf. Diod. S. 1, 4 μετὰ πολλῆς. 
κακοπαθείας καὶ κινδύνων, Dem. Con. 728a.; Plutarch. mor. 993 a. ; 
on the other hand, when placed after the substantives, it is some- 
times in the Plur. and sometimes in the Sing., and its gender is 
that of the nearest or principal substantive, as in Heb. ix. 9 δῶρά 467 
τε καὶ θυσίαι προςφέρονται μὴ δυνάμεναι ete. iii. 6 ἐὰν τὴν παῤῥησίαν Mh ed. 
καὶ τὸ καύχημα μέχρι τέλους βεβαίαν κατάσχωμεν (var.), Rev. viil. 7. 550 
Cf. Iliad. 2, 186 sq. αἱ ἡμέτεραί τ᾽ ἄλοχοι καὶ νήπια τέκνα ciat ἐνὶ 491 
μεγάροις ποτιδέγμεναι, Thuc. 8, 68 πυθόμενος ... καὶ τὸν Στρομβι- Τὰ οἱ, 
χίδην καὶ τὰς ναῦς ἀπεληχυθότα, Xen. Cyr. 7, 5, 60. If the 
substantives are of the same gender, or if the adjective employed 
has not different forms to express different genders, it is usually 
expressed but once ; — with the first substantive as in Acts ii. 43; 
Matt. iv. 24; Mark ii. 15; Eph.i. 21; 1 Cor. xi. 30 (2 Pet. i. 10); 
Rey. vi. 15, or with the second as in 2 Cor. . 6. 


The Plural of an adjective which belongs to two substantives may 
appear to be used in 1 Pet. i. 18 οὐ φθαρτοῖς ἀργυρίῳ ἢ χρυσίῳ ἐλυτρώθητε; 
but φθαρτ. must be regarded as a substantive, and dpy. and yp. as explan- 
atory specifications in apposition to it: not with corruptible things, silver 
or gold ete. 

6. Predicative amplifications, which we introduce by as or for, 
to, are very frequent: 1 Tim. ii. 7 εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κῆρυξ, 1 Cor. 
x. 6 ταῦτα τύποι ἡμῶν ἐγενήθησαν, vs. 11; xv. 26; Matt. i. 18; 
Jno. iii. 2; xii. 46; 2 Tim.i. 11; 1 Pet. ii. 5 αὐτοὶ ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες 
οἰκοδομεῖσθε οἶκος. πνευματικός, 1 Cor. ix. 5 ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιά- 
γειν, Rom. iii. 25 ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον, Jas. v.10 ὑπόδευγμα 
λάβετε... τοὺς προφήτας, Acts vii. 10 ; xix.19; xx. 28; χχνυ. 14; 
xxvi. 5; Luke xx. 43; 1 Cor. xv. 20, 23; 2 Cor. iii. 6; 1 Jno. 
iv. 10,14 (2 Thess. ii. 13 according to the reading ἀπαρχήν) Heb. 
i. 2; xii. 9; 2 Pet. iii. 1; Rev. xiv.4. Sometimes such a Predi- 
cate is made prominent by the comparative particle ὡς, as in 2 Cor. 
x. 2 λογιζομένους ἡμᾶς ὡς κατὰ σάρκα περυπατοῦντας, 1 Cor. iv. 1; 
cf. 2 Thess. iii. 15; 1 Tim. v. 1 ; or the Hebraistic construction 
with eis is adopted, as in Acts xiii. 22 ἤγειρεν τὸν Δαυὶδ αὐτοῖς εἰς 


528 § 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 


βασιλέα, vs. 47; vii. 21; see p. 228. On making the Predicate 
precede, see § 61. 


The Predicate is sometimes an adjective, as in Heb. vii. 24 ἀπαράβατον 
ἔχει τὴν ἱερωσύνην, Mark viii. 17; Heb. v.14; 1 Cor. xii. 22; Matt. xii. 18 
ἀπεκατεστάθη (ἡ χεὶρ) ὑγιής, Acts xiv. 10; xxvii. 43; xxviii. 13; Rom: 
x.19; 1 Cor. iv.9; ix.17; Mark iv. 28; or a pronoun, as in Rom. ix. 24 
ovs (σκεύη ἐλέους) καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς, Jno. iv. 23; Heb. x. 20. On the 
other hand, a Predicate is sometimes annexed to a pronoun, as in 1 Pet. 
iii. 21 ὃ (ὕδωρ) καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον viv ow et , 

Such Predicates are sometimes to be taken proleptically (Bornem. Luc. 
Ρ. 89; Krii. 210), as in Matt. xii. 13 ἀπεκατεστάθη ὑγιής 1.6. ὥςτε γενέσθαι 
ὑγιῆ (Luke xiii. 85 var.) Phil. iii. 21; 1 Cor. i. 8; 1 Thess. iii. 13. . 

551 1. Especially diversified are the appositive adjuncts,! which, an- 

468 nexed asyndetically, are intended mainly to define more closely one 

6th el. nominal (or pronominal) notion by another. But apposition is, 

492 a. Synthetic, in the case of proper names which are distin- 

cake guished by the species or genus, or, if they belong in common to 
a plurality of persons or of objects, by a distinctive quality: Matt. 
iii. 6 ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιορδάνῃ ποταμῷ, Heb. xii. 22 προςεληλύθατε Σιὼν ὄρει, 
Acts x. 82 οἰκία Σίμωνος βυρσέως, Heb. vii. 4 δεκάτην ᾿Αβραὰμ 
ἔδωκεν ... ὁ πατριάρχης, Acts xxi. 39; Rev. ii. 24. 

Ὁ. Partitive (Rost 484): 1 Cor. vii. T ἕκαστος ἴδιον ἔχει χάρισμα, 
ὁ μὲν οὕτως, ὁ δὲ οὕτως, Matt. xxii. 5; Acts xvii. 832; xxvii. 44, 
more simply in Acts ii. 6 ἤκουον εἷς ἕκαστος TH ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ etc., 
Eph. iv. 25. 

6. Parathetic, when some characteristic of a person or thing is 
expressed: Luke xxiii. 50 ᾿Ιωσήφ, ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς rai δίκαιος, Jno. 
xili. 14 εἰ ἐγὼ ἔνυψα ὑμῶν τοὺς πόδας, ὁ κύριος Kal ὁ διδάσκαλος, 
vill. 40; Heb. ix. 24; Acts xxii. 12; Jas.i.85; Matt. xiv. 20 ; 
Rom. vii. 19; ef. 1 Pet. v. 1, ete. 

ἃ. Hpexegetic, when a more pretvise expression is added, which 
we should introduce by namely, that is to say: Eph.i. 7 ἐν 6 
ἔχομεν (vs. 10) τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν ... THY ἄφεσιν τῶν παραπτωμά- 
των, 1 Pet. v. 8 ὁ ἀντίδικος ὑμῶν, διάβολος, Eph. 1. 13; ii. 15; 
iv.18; Phil,iv.18; 1 Cor.v.7; 2 Cor.v.1; vii.6; Rom. viii. 28 ; 
Jno. vi. 27; vii. 2; Mark xii. 44; Acts viii. 38; 1 Jno. v. 20; 
Jude 4; Rev. xii. 1, etc. So also after pronouns, as in Jno. ix, 13 


1 Well-considered views are contained in J. D. Weickert’s Progr. on Apposition in 
German, Liibben, 1829. 4to. Further, cf. Mehlhorn de Appositione in Graeca ling. 
Glog. 1838 (Sommer in the Zeitschr. fiir Alterthumswiss. 1839. nr. 125 f.), Rost, 
Gramm. 482 f. 


ee —<— = 


§ 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 529 


ἄγουσιν αὐτὸν ... Tov ποτε τυφλόν, 1 Thess. iv. 3 τοῦτό ἐστε θέλημα 

τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν (Xen. Cyr. 2, 2, 15 ; Plat. rep. 9,583 α. ; 

Gorg. 478 6.); 2 Cor. ii. 1 ἔκρινα ἐμαυτῷ τοῦτο, τὸ wy... ἐλθεῖν 

(Rost 486); Eph. i. 19 εἰς ἡμᾶς τοὺς πιστεύοντας, Rom. xiv. 13; 

2 Cor. xiii. 9; Phil. iii. 3; Jas. i. 27; 1 Pet. i. 21; ii. 7 (2 Pet. 

iii. 2); 1 Jno. ii. 16; iii. 241 ete. (Bornem. Lue. p. 114 sq.) ; 

1 Cor. xvi. 21 6 ἀσπασμὸς τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου i.e. τῇ χειρί μου IT. 

(Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 74; Krii. 218 f.; Rost 483; ef. Cic. parad. 4, 

8; Fam.5,12; Liv.4,2; 7,40). Appositive adjuncts occur even 

after adverbs, as in Luke iv. 23 ὧδε ἐν τῇ πατρίδι σου (Aeschyl. 

Choeph. 654); Jas. iv. 1 πόθεν πόλεμοι καὶ μάχαι ; οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν, 

ἐς τῶν ἡδονῶν ete. Mark viii. 4; Eph. i. 19; 1 Pet. ii. 7, 15. 552 
Several words may be joined by apposition to one and the same 

subject, Rey. xii. 9; xiii. 16; and so sometimes an apposition con- ~~ 

sists of several parts, 2 Thess. ii. 3.sq. On the other hand, in 2 Pet. 

ii. 18 we are not (with Lchm. and Tdf.) to find in τοὺς ἐν πλάνῃ 

ἀναστρεφομένους an apposition to τοὺς ddtyws ἀποφεύγοντας, but 

that second Accusative depends on ἀποφεύγ. [see Huther and 

Wiesinger in loc. ]. 





An apposition occurs also in Mark viii. 8 ἦραν περισσεύματα κλασμάτων 493 

ἑπτὰ σπυρίδας they took up remnants, seven baskets ; and in Matt. xvi. 13, Tth ed, 
according to the reading τίνα pe λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ 
ἀνθρώπου; the last words would be an apposition, see Bornem. Luc. 
p- 111. To reject μέ on the sole authority of Cod. B [and Cod. Sin.] 
(for versions cannot be counted here) with Fr. ['Tdf.] and others [Lchm. 
puts it in brackets] I consider rash. Mé here may be cumbersome, but 
I cannot regard it as inadmissible: who do people say that I, the Son 
of Man,am? He himself had always styled himself the Son of Man, 
and now desires to hear what idea the people have of him as the Son of 
Man. As to other passages, in which the Dutch critics in particular 
have taken offence at such appositions and made hasty alterations in 
the text, see Bornem. diss. de glossem. N. T. cap. 5 prefixed to his Scholia 
on Luke. 

We must likewise refer to the head of Apposition the well-known use 469 
of ἄλλος before a substantive, which occurs not only in Homer, e.g. Odyss..6th ed 
2, 412 μήτηρ δ᾽ ἐμοὶ οὔτι πέπυται οὐδ᾽ ἄλλαι Suwai i.e. nor other persons 
(that is) servants, 1, 132 (cf. Thiersch, Gr. p. 588), but also in. prose 
authors, e.g. Plato, Gorg. 473 c. εὐδαιμονιζόμενος ὑπὸ τῶν πολιτῶν καὶ τῶν 


1 The personal pronoun included in a verb takes an apposition in 1 Pet: v. 1 παρακαλῶ 
(ἐγὼ) 6 συμπρεσβύτερος καὶ μάρτυς etc. cf. Lucian. ἃ. deor. 24,2; Thue. 1, 137; Xen. 
Hell. 2, 3,42. To this head may be referred also 1 Cor. vi. 11 ταὐτά τινες ἦτε (ὑμεῖς, 
τινές you, i.e. some). 

67 


530 § 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 


ἄλλων ξένων and the rest (namely) foreigners, Xen. An. 5, 4, 25 οἱ πολέμιοι 
ὁμοῦ δὴ πάντες γενόμενοι ἐμάχοντο καὶ ἐξηκόντιζον τοῖς παλτοῖς " καὶ ἄλλα 
δόρατα ἔχοντες, 1, ὅ, ὅ ; cf. Elmsley, Eurip. Med. p. 128 sq. Lips.; Jacobs, 
Athen. p. 22sq.; Kriiger, Dion. p. 1389; Poppo, Cyrop. p. 186; Vle. 
Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian. p. 54sq.; Zell, Aristot. ethic. p. 62. This is 
probably not to be applied to Jno. xiv. 16 καὶ ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν; 
but the analogous ἕτερος does appear to be so used in Luke xxiii. 32 ἤγοντο 
δὲ καὶ ἕτεροι δύο κακοῦργοι σὺν αὐτῷ ἀναιρεθῆναι, where from the 
expression Jesus also seems to be called κακοῦργος (cf. x. 1 ἀνέδειξεν 6 
κύριος καὶ ἑτέρους ἑβδομήκοντα δύο). See Thuc. 4,67; Antiph. 6. 24. 

Abbreviation combined with apposition occurs in 2 Cor. vi. 13: τὴν 
αὐτὴν ἀντιμισθίαν πλατύνθητε καὶ ὑμεῖς, instead of τὸ αὐτό, 6 ἐστιν 
ἀντιμισθία, see Fr. diss. in 2 Cor. II. 119 sqq. 

Epexegetical apposition may likewise be introduced by τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, as in 
Rom. vii. 18 ἐν ἐμοὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου, Acts xix. 4; Mark vii. 2; 
Heb. ix.11; xi. 16; xiii. 15; 1 Pet. iii. 20; Philem, 12. An apposition 
is annexed with emphasis by αὐτός in Eph. v. 23 ὡς καὶ 6: Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ 
τῆς ἐκκλησίας, αὐτὸς σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος. 

An apposition appears to be incorporated into a relative clause in 
1 Ino. ii. 25 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπαγγελία, ἣν αὐτὸς ἐπηγγείλατο ἡμῖν τὴν ζωὴν 
τὴν αἰώνιον, probably also in Phil. iii. 18 and 2 Cor. x. 13, see Mey. in 
loc., ef. Plat. Phaed. 66 c. τότε... ἡμῖν ἔσται οὗ ἐπιθυμοῦμεν ... φρονήσεως, 
Hipp. maj. 281 ¢. of παλαιοὶ ἐκεῖνοι; ὧν ὀνόματα μεγάλα λέγεται... Πιττακοῦ 

558 καὶ Βίαντος, ... φαίνονται ἀπεχόμενοι, rep. 3, 402 ο. ; 7, 533 ο. ; Apol. p. 41 ἃ.; 
Lucian. Eunuch. 4. 


494 8. That words in apposition, being co-ordinated with their prin- 
Τὰ. οἱ, cipals, agree with them in case is the well-known rule. It does 
not extend to gender or number (Ramshorn, 8S. 294) ; since, in 
particular, a neuter (abstract) may be put in apposition with a. 
personal noun, a plural with a collective singular, a singular with 
a plural, as Phil. iv. 1 ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί... χαρὰ καὶ crepavos 
μου, 1 Cor. iv. 18; xv. 20; Col. iii. 4; Phil. iv. 18; Rev. i. 6; 
xvi. 8 (Soph. Oed. C. 472; Eurip. Troad. 432; Plin. epp. 9, 26 
Demosthenes, illa norma oratoris et regula, Liv. 1, 20, 3 virgines 
Vestae, Alba oriundum sacerdotium, 1, 27,3; 8, 82,5), 1 Cor. i. 2 
τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Xp., τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ, 
1 Jno. v. 16 δώσει αὐτῷ ζωήν, τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσιν μὴ πρὸς θάνατον, 
470 cf. 1 Kings xii.10; Xen. Mem. 2, 8,2; ΗΙ. 8,4. Cf. Vig. p. 41. 
Gth ed, 
1 Bornemann’s exposition (bibl. Studien der sachs. Geistl. I. 71), according to which 
αὐτῷ is referred to him that asks, and rots ἁμαρτάνουσι is taken for a Dativ. commodi 
(he will give him life for them etc.), appears to me artificial. Αὐτῷ cannot well be 


referred to ἀδελφὸς ἁμαρτάνων ἁμαρτίαν μὴ πρὸς θάνατον, as αἰτεῖν here manifestly denotes 
intercession. 


§59, EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 531 


Still greater discordance occurs in the apposition contained in 
Col. iii. 5 νεκρώσατε τὰ μέλη... πορνείαν, ἀκαθαρσίαν etc., where 
the vices are placed beside the members employed in the indulgence 
of them, the results beside the instruments. See Matth.974. But 
even from the agreement of the apposition with the noun in case 
(apart from what has been established above by 1 Cor. xvi. 21), 
there are exceptions ; 

a. It is a very common grammatical usage to annex the apposi- 
tion in the genitive to the noun on which it depends (Bengel on 
Jno. ii, 21), as in 2 Pet. ii. 6 πόλεις Σοδόμων καὶ Tonoppas 
(Odyss. 1,2; Thue. 4,46 ; Κα. 97, like urbs Romae, flumen Rheni 
in Latin, cf. also Hoffmann, Grammat. Syr. p. 298), Luke xxii. 1 
ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν ἀζύμων (2 Mace. vi. T Διονυσίων éopty), ii. 41; Jno. 
xiii. 1 ; 2 Cor. v. 5 τὸν ἀῤῥαβῶνα τοῦ πνεύματος the earnest of the 
Spirit (consisting in the Spirit), the Spirit as an earnest (Eph. 
i. 14), Rom. iv. 11 σημεῖον ἔλαβε περιτομῆς (where some au- 
thorities give περιτομήν as an emendation), Jno. ii. 21; xi. 13; 
Acts ii. 33; iv. 22; Rom. viii. 21 ; xv. 16 ;,1 Cor. v. 8; 2 Cor. v.1; 
Eph. ii. 14; vi. 14,16 f.; Col. iii. 24; Heb. vi. 1; xii. 11; Jas. 
i. 12; 1 Pet. iii. 3, ete. Under this head comes also Eph. iv. 9 
κατέβη εἰς τὰ κατώτερα (μέρη) τῆς γῆς (γῸΝ: nivann) fo the lower 
parts i.e. the earth, or which constitute the earth (similar is 
Isa. xxxvili. 14 εἰς τὸ ὕψος τοῦ ovpavod, cf. Acts ii. 19 ἐν τῷ 554 

᾿ οὐρανῷ ἄνω.... ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς κάτω). The Apostle infers from ἀνέβη 
a κατέβη : now Christ strictly and properly came down on earth 
(and from it ascended again) ; this, contrasted with heaven, which 
is here called ὕψος, is spoken of as a deep or lower region. Christ’s 495 
descent into Hades (to which the expression is referred in Evang. ‘th ed. 
Apocr. p. 445) as an isolated fact cannot here be taken into 
consideration ; it would be too restricted to refer the expression 
αἰχμαλωτεύειν αἰχμαλωσίαν to that. Finally, in Rom. viii. 23 also 
the interpretation of ἀπαρχὴ τοῦ πνεύματος the Spirit as firstfruits, 
that is, of God’s gracious gifts, has not yet been conclusively 
disproved, even by Mey. and Philippi. The main argument against 
it, that the Genitive after ἀπαρχή is always (in biblical diction ? 
‘yet cf. Exod. xxvi. 21; Deut. xii. 11,17) partitive, is merely 
mechanical. According to this, we could never say: my /irst- 
Jruits, firstfruits of the Pentecost etc. Living languages cannot 
be pent up within so narrow bounds, ef. Fr. Rom. 11. 175. The 
Spirit is unquestionably a divine gift, as well as σωτηρία or κλη- 
ρονομία, and may with perfect propriety be regarded as the first- 


532 § 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 


fruits of the gifts of God ; and this view is favored by the phrase 
ἀῤῥαβὼν τοῦ πνεύματος more than Philippi is ready to admit On 
the other hand, πνεῦμα to signify the fulness of heavenly gifts here- 
after is not current in biblical usage.? As for the rest, the Genitivus 
471 appositionis is easily explicable from the nature of the Genitive 
διὰ el. (the sign of circumcision, the Genitive of the closer specification 
of a general notion), and is not unfrequent in the Oriental idiom 
(Gesen. Lehrg. 677; Ewald 579), while in Greek it appears to be 
confined to the above geographical expression (and even this is 
on the whole rare). Not one of the instances adduced from Thuc. 
by Bauer, Philol. Thue. Paull. p. 31 sqq., is entirely certain.2 In 
Latin, Lowever, ef. besides the expressions, quite usual in ancient 
languages but unnoticed by the moderns, verbum scribendi, voca- 
bulum silentii, Cic. off. 2, 5 collectis ceteris causis, eluvionis, pesti- 
lentiae, vastitatis rel. (i.e. quae consistunt in eluv., pestilentia, etc.). 
555 b. Sometimes we find the Nominative where the structure of 
the sentence would lead us to expect a different case, as in Jas. 
ili. 8 τὴν γλῶσσαν οὐδεὶς δύναται δαμάσαι: ἀκατάστατον κακόν, 
μεστὴ ἰοῦ. The last words are to be regarded as ἃ sort οἵ excla- 
mation, and, therefore, annexed in an independent construction, 
ef. Mark xii. 40; Phil. iii. 18 f. So also might Rev. i. 5 ἀπὸ ᾿Ιησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ, ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός be taken. In Luke xx. 27 προςελθόντες 
τινὲς τῶν Σ᾽ αδδουκαίων, οἱ ἀντιλέγοντες ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι etc., τῶν 
ἀντιλεγόντων would have been more precise, and nothing is gained 
496 by a reference to Bhdy. 8. 68 (Mey.). Moreover, the passage 
ith el. (Thue. 1, 110) adduced by Bornem. in loc. is not entirely analo- 
gous. There is, however, some similarity in Corn. Nep. 2, 7 
illorum urbem ut propugnaculum oppositum esse barbaris, where 
the gender (as in the above instance the case) is conformed to 
that, not of the substantive to which it in sense belongs, but of a 
subordinate substantive. Further, a parallel construction in the 
N.T. would be Mark vii. 19 according to the reading καθαρίζων. 
On the other hand, Demosth. Aristocrat. 458 a. ὁρᾷ .. . τῆς πόλεως 
οἰκοδομήματα Kal κατασκευάσματα τηλικαῦτα καὶ τοιαῦτα, ὥςτε... 
προπύλαια ταῦτα, νεώςοικοι, στοαί etc. appears to be an intentional 


1 It would be a great mistake to consider as an apposition the second Genitive in 
Col. ii. 17 & ἐστι σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ. The words are 
undoubtedly to be so explained as to make Χριστοῦ a part of the predicate, and 
dependent on ἐστί : but the body is of Christ, belongs to Christ, is in, with, Christ. 

2 In the passages adduced by Mey. on Eph., as aboye, [1st. and 2d edns.] from Erfurdt’s 
Soph. Antig. 355 and Schaef. Apollon. Rhod. schol. p. 235, there is nothing connected ᾿ 
with the Gen. apposit. 


Ἂν. 


§ 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 533 


anacoluthon. And it is in general quite intelligible how even a ἡ 
word in apposition, if it is to be introduced as independent, is put 
in the Nominative without regard to the construction, — a sort 
of detached insertion. 


In 2 Cor. xi. 28 ἡ ἐπισύστασίς pov ete. is not an abnormal apposition to 
χωρὶς τῶν παρεκτός ---- such a solecism is not to be credited to Paul, — but 
Subject Nominative, and as such rendered prominent. 

The apposition to a Vocative stands in the Nominative in Rom. ii. 1 
ὦ ἄνθρωπε πᾶς ὃ κρίνων, Rev. xi. 17; xvi. 7; cf. Bar. ii. 12; Acta apoer. 
Ρ. 51, 60; the epexegesis in these cases is not construed with the Vocative, 
but introduced independently. Cf. Bhdy.S.67. In Matt. vi. 9 the adjunct 
ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς could not have been annexed to πάτερ by means of the 


article in any other manner than it is, since the article has no Voc. form. 


9. An apposition sometimes refers, not merely to single words, 
but also to whole clauses (Erfurdt, Soph. Oed. R. 602; Monk, 
Eurip. Alcest. 7; Matth. Eurip. Phoen. 223; Sprachl. 11. 970 ἢ ; 
Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 228; Krii. 215); and the nouns of which it 
consists, in the Nom. or Acc. according to the form of the sentence, 472 
may then frequently be resolved into an independent proposition St αἱ. 
(Wannowski, syntax. anom. p. 47 sqq. 197 sq.) : 

a. Substantives in the Acc. (cf. also Lob. paralip. p. 519), as in 
Rom. xii. 1 παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς, παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν 
ζῶσαν, ἁγίαν, εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν, i.e. 
ἥτις ἐστὶ λογ. λατρ. qui est cultus etc., 1 Tim. ii. 6 ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν 
ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων, τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις : ;——and in the 
Nominative, as in 2 Thess. i. 4 f. ὥςτε ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐν ὑμῖν καυχᾶσθαι 
ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑπομονῆς ὑμῶν καὶ πίστεως ἐν 556 
πᾶσι τοῖς διωγμοῖς ὑμῶν καὶ ταῖς θλίψεσιν, αἷς ἀνέχεσθε, ἔνδειγμα 
τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ etc. (cf. Sueton. Calig. 16 decretum est, 
ut dies... Parilia vocaretur, velué argumentum rursus conditae 
urbis, Curt. 4, 7,13 repente obductae coelo nubes condidere solem, 
ingens aestu fatigatis awxiliwm, Cic. Tusc. 1, 43, 102; Hor. sat. 

1, 4,110; Flor. 3,21). See Eurip. Orest. 1105 ; Here. fur. 59 ; 497 
Electr. 231; Plat. Gorg. 507 d.; as to Latin, Ramshorn 296. thd 
Bengel incorrectly applies this usage to Eph. i. 23 τὸ πλήρωμα ete. 
where occurs a perfectly simple appositive relation (to σῶμα αὐτοῦ). 

b. A Neuter adjective or participle refers to the whole clause in 
2 Tim. ii. 14 διαμαρτυρ. ἐνώπιον τοῦ κυρίου μὴ Noyomayeiv, eis οὐδὲν 
χρήσιμον, Mark vii. 19 καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται. καθαρίξον 
πάντα τὰ βρώματα which (namely ἐκπορ. εἰς τ. ab.) purges all sorts 
of food ; yet see above, 8b. οὗ, ὃ 60, 8... (On the other hand, 


534 § 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 


- we must not with Mey. take ἀνακαλυπτόμενον in 2 Cor. iii. 14 for 
such an impersonal apposition ; it is an attributive to κάλυμμα.) 


In Rev. xxi. 17 μέτρον ἀνθρώπου is annexed as a loose apposition to 
ἐμέτρησε τὸ τεῖχος etc. A construction similar, but not exactly the same, 
is adduced by Mdv. S. 23. 


10. The word in apposition naturally follows the main substan- 
tive, but for the sake of emphasis is sometimes separated from it 
by several intervening words ; as, 1 Cor. v. 7 τὸ πάσχα ἡμῶν ὑπὲρ 
ἡμῶν ἐτύθη, Χριστός, Rom. viii. 28; 2 Cor. vii. 6; Heb. vii. 4; 
Stallb. Plat. Euthyd. p.144; Weber, Demosth. p. 152; Jas. i. 7 f. 
μὴ οἰέσθω ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος, ὅτι λήψεταί τι παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου, ἀνὴρ 
δίψυχος, ἀκατάστατος etc. we say he, a double-minded man. Rom. 
vil. 21 does not belong here; and as to 2 Cor. xi. 2 see Mey. against 
Fr. The apposition precedes, for an obvious reason, in 1 Pet. iii. 7 
oi ἄνδρες συνοικοῦντες ... ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳ. But of 
a different nature is, for example, Tit. i. 3 κατ᾽ ἐπυτωγὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος 
ἡμῶν θεοῦ. Here the Predicate σωτὴρ ἡμῶν is the principal noun, 
but is explained epexegetically (since elsewhere Christ is so called) 
by the appositive θεός. So also in Rom. iv. 12; 1 Tim. ii. 3; 
2 Tim. i. 10 ; Acts xxiv. 1; 1 Pet.iii. 15; v.8;, 2 Pet.i.11; ii. 20 
Giii. 7) ; Rev. ix. 11; Jno. vi. 27; Luke ii. 1; Jude4; Heb. ii. 9; 
cf. Aeschin. ep. 6, p. 124 b.; Paus.1,10,5; Alciphr. 3,41; D.S. 
exc. Vat. p. 60. Frequently also in Latin, as in Cic. orat. 1, 18 ; 
Liv. 1, 14; 10, 35; 27,1; Caes. Ὁ. gall. 4,1,10; afr. 98; Suet. 
Tib. 2; Galb. 4; Otho 1; Nep. 20,1; 22, 3. 


557 Under this head come also adjectives or substantives placed at the 
beginning of a sentence, when corresponding to epexegetical apposition 

473 they herald the contents of the sentence (Krii.215f; Mdv. 229): Heb. viii. 1 

θὲ} et. κεφάλαιον ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις τοιοῦτον ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα (Lycurg. orat. 17, 6), 
where it is not necessary to supply ἐστί Cf. Rom. νὴ]. ὃ; 1 Pet. iii. 8. 


11. In conclusion, we must advert to the irregularities (sole- 
cisms) of government and apposition which occur in the Revelation 
(especially in the descriptions of visions), and which, from their 
number and nature, give the style the impress of considerable 
harshness; see, besides the well-known works of Stolberg and 

498 Schwarz (see above, p. 8), my exeget. Stud. I. 164 ff.1 They are 
Tth ed. 

1 What Hitzig (on Joh. Marcus. Ziirich, 1843. 8vo. S. 65 ff.) has collected respecting 
the language of the Revelation, serves a special critical purpose, and too much is put 
down to the account of the Hebrew element. A more moderate view is taken by Liicke, 
Apokal. II. 448 ff., who, however, in this particular sets too high a value on LHitzig’s 
merits. 


§59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 535 


partly intended, and partly traceable to the writer’s negligence. 
From a Greek point of view they may be explained as instances 
of anacoluthon, blending of two constructions, constructio ad 
sensum, variatio structurae, as should always have been done, 
instead of attributing them to the ignorance of the author, or pro- 
nouncing them to be mere Hebraisms, since most of them would 
be anomalies even in Hebrew, and in producing many of them 
Hebrew could have had only an indirect and incidental influence. 
But with all his simplicity and Oriental tone of diction, the author 
understands and observes very well the rules of Greek syntax, and 
even in imitating Hebrew expressions proceeds judiciously (Liicke 
S. 447). Besides, examples analogous to many of these irregu- 
larities occur in the Sept., and even in Greek authors; though 
certainly not in such thick succession as in the Revelation. In 
reference to particulars we remark : 

Rev. ii. 20 is probably to be construed thus: ὅτε ἀφεῖς τὴν γυναῖκά 
σου ᾿Ιεζάβελ: ἣ λέγουσα ἑαυτὴν προφῆτιν καὶ διδάσκει καὶ πλανᾷ 
etc. who, while she pretends to be a prophetess, teaches and seduces 
etc. The blending of two constructions explains vii. 9 εἶδον, καὶ 
ἰδοὺ ὄχλος πολὺς ... ἑστῶτες ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου ... περιβε- 
βλημένους (where the writer, in using the Nom. had ἰδού, and 
in using the Acc. περιβ. had εἶδον, in his mind, and blended both 
constructions together, cf. iv.4; xiv. 14; Judith x.7; Stallb. 7 
Plat. Euthyphr. p. 32).! In Rev. νυ. 11 f. ἤκουσα φωνὴν ἀγγέλων 558 
... καὶ ἣν ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν μυριάδες μυριάδων . . . λέγοντες, the last 
word does not refer to μυριάδες but to ἄγγελοι (as the words καὶ 
_ tw... pup. are to be considered parenthetical), as if the writer 
had commenced φωνὴν ἐπῆραν ἄγγελοι etc. (Similar are Thue. 7, 
42 τοῖς “Συρακουσίοις ... κατάπληξις οὐκ ὀλίγη ἐγένετο ... 
ὁρῶντες, Achill. Tat. 6, 18 πειρατήριον ταῦτα εἶναί σοι δοκεῖ... 
ἄνδρα τοιοῦτον λαβοῦσα, Plat. Phaed. p. 81 ἃ. οὐκοῦν οὕτω μὲν 474 
ἔχουσα εἰς τὸ ὅμοιον αὐτῇ τὸ ἀειδὲς ἀπέρχεται τὸ θεῖόν τε ..., of bthed. 
ἀφικομένῃ ὑπάρχει αὐτῇ εὐδαίμονι εἷναι, πλάνης ... ἀπηλλαγ- 
μένῃ, ὥςπερ δὲ λέγεται κατὰ τῶν μεμυημένων, ὡς ἀληθῶς τὸν λοιπὸν 
χρόνον μετὰ θεῶν διάγου σα, instead of διωγούσῃ.) Elsewhere we 499 
find λέγων, λέγοντες iv. 1; ix.13sq.; xi.15 with φωνή, φωναί ete., the Ted + 
reference being to the speakers themselves. Aéywy is even used 


1 In Rev. xiv. 14 εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ νεφέλη λευκὴ καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν νεφέλην καθήμενον ὅμοιον υἱῷ 
ἀνθρώπου, ἔχων etc., probably καθήμενον is not the Acc. Masc., but the Neuter used 
substantively : on the cloud something like unto a human being ete. Afterwards the 
construction immediately passes into the Masculine. 


586 §59, EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 


quite absolutely xi. 1; xiv. 7; xix. 6, as in the Sept. correspond- 
ing to sxd Gen. xv. 1; xxii. 20; xxxviii. 13; xlv. 16; xlviii. 2; 
Exod. v.14; Josh. x. 17; Judges xvi. 2; 1 Sam. xv. 12; 1 Kings 
xii. 10, (and even Rev. v. 12 might be so taken). The anomalous 
+ apposition (ὃ 59, 8b.) in Rev. iii, 12 appears more strange: τὸ 
ὄνομα τῆς πόλεως τοῦ θεοῦ pov, τῆς καινῆς ‘Iep., ἡ καταβαίνουσα 
ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ... καὶ τὸ ὄνομα μου τὸ καινόν (where, however, ἡ 
καταβαίνουσα etc., as it cannot well be taken for a Nominat. tituli, 
interrupts the structure as a significant parenthesis, as if for αὕτη 
ἐστὶν ἡ xat.); and that also in xiv. 12 ὧδε ὑπομονὴ τῶν ἁγίων ἐστίν" 
οἱ τηροῦντες tas ἐντολάς ete. (i. 5), where there is an abrupt 
transition to a new sentence, somewhat as in Jas. iii. 8 τὴν γλῶσσαν 
οὐδεὶς δύναται ἀνθρώπων δαμάσαι, ἀκατάσχετον κακόν, μεστὴ ἰοῦ 
θανατηφόρου. Likewise in Rev. viii. 9 ἀπέθανεν τὸ τρίτον τῶν 
κτισμάτων τῶν ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, τὰ ἔχοντα ψυχάς, ix. 14; xvi. 3 
probably the apposition is purposely inserted in an independent 
form; see besides xx. 2. In Rev. xxi. 11f. there is a repeated 
change of construction: first we find καταβαίνουσαν regularly 
construed with τὴν πόλιν vs. 10; then follows ὁ φωστήρ etc., as 
an independent parenthetic clause; vs. 12 reverts to πόλιες, but 
the attributive forms part of a new sentence, ἔχουσα etc. Cf. Cic. 
Brut. 85 Q. Catulus non antiquo more sed hoc nostro ... eruditus ; 
multae literae, summa... comitas etc. On the combination of 
two constructions, each of which is allowable, in xviii. 12 f. ; 
xix. 12, see 8 63 Il. 1. Thatin xvii.14[?] isless harsh. Ini. 6f. 
τῷ ἀγαπῶντι etc. is connected with αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα etc. ; the author, 
however, instead of writing καὶ ποιήσαντι etc., inserts this thought 
as an independent clause. The connection of two genders in xiv.19 
we noticed above, no.4b. Still more singular is the construction 
in xi. 4 οὗτοί εἰσιν ai δύο ἐλαῖαι Kal ai δύο Avyviat ai ἐνώπιον τοῦ 
κυρίου ἑστῶτες (for ἑστῶσαι is manifestly a correction), v. 6 
—— 559 Cav. 8; xiy,1 var.); the attributives, however, are construed ad 
sensum, since the substantives denote living creatures of the mas- 
culine gender. As to i. 4 see p. 68. 


(Inaccuracies of a different kind have been occasionally noticed in the 
previous part of thisGrammar. With διδάσκειν τινί p. 227, may be classed 
xix. 5 αἰνεῖν τῷ θεῷς The conjunction ἵνα is frequently in good Codd. — 

Ἐπ p. 289 sq. — construed with the Indic. Present, xiii, 17 ; xx. 3.) 


§ 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. 537 


860. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES: PERIODS. 500 
Tth od, 


1. In continued discourse, connection between propositions is 
the rule; want of connection (asyndeton), the exception. The 475 
latter is sometimes grammaiical, and sometimes rhetorical. 6th ed, 

a. Absence of grammatical connection occurs not only with 

sentences which begin new (i.e. the larger) sections, the commence- 
ment of which the want of connection is intended to indicate, as 
in-Rom. ix.1; x. 1; xiii.1; Gal. iii.1; iv. 21; vi.1; Eph. vi. 1, 
5,10; Phil. iv.1,4; 1 Tim. iii-1,14; v.1; vi.1,3; 2 Tim. ii. 14; 
iv. 1; 1 Pet. v.1; 2 Pet. iii. 1; 1 Jno.ii. 1; iv. 1f.; but also in 
uninterrupted discourse in the case of individual sentences, some- 
times in narration where mere sequence passes for chronological 
connection, sometimes in the didactic style, particularly with in- 
junctions, maxims and the like, which, although running on one 
common thread of discourse, yet present themselves as individually 
independent. The former class are of most frequent occurrence 
in John, and constitute one of the peculiarities of that writer’s 
style, cf. the oft-recurring λέγει or εἶπεν αὐτῷ, ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ i. 38, 
40, 42, 44, 46 f. 49,52; ii. 4f£7, 8; ii. 3; iv. 7, 11, 15,17, 19, 
21, 25, 26, 34, 50; i. 26, 49f.; i1.19; iii. 3,5,9, 10, iv.13, 17; 
though it is not to be denied that by asyndeton (cf. xx. 26; xxi.3), 
especially where it runs through several verses, the narration gains 
much in liveliness and impressiveness (as it is often accompanied 
with the praesens historicus), Jno. iii. 3-5; iv. 9-11, 15-17; 
v. 6-8; xx. 14-18, and the grammatical asyndeton is combined 
with the rhetorical. 

Didactic asyndeton occurs in the sermon on the mount, Matt. v. 

vi. and vii., also in James, but most frequently in John (in Christ’s 
discourses and in the 1st Epistle). The discourse incessantly 560 
begins anew, as it were; and in translating, it is unjustifiable to 
insert a connecting particle. Of. Jno. ii. 7; iii. 830-33; v. 43, 45; 

vil, 17,18; x. 3,4, 17f.; xv. 2-24; 1 Jno. i. 6, 8-10; ii. 4,6, 
9f.15,18f.; iii. 1f. 4-10, 18-20; iv. 4-10.12; v.1f. δὲ 98 

12, 16-19; Jas. i. 16-18; iv. 7-10; v. 1-6, 8-10; Rom. xii. 9 
14, 16, 21; 1 Tim. iv. 11-16; v.14, 22-24; Matt. x. 8. 

2. Ὁ. Lhetorical asyndeton, of which even Longinus 19; Gregor. 
Cor. in Walz rhet. graeci VII. II. 1211; Quintil. institut. 9, 3, 50 
sq. treat, and which is correctly classed among rhetorical figures 


3 


1 Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik, 5. 116 f. 
68 ‘ 


538 § 60, CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. 


(Glassii philol. sacra I. 512 sq.; Bauer, rhetor. Paull. II. 591 sqq. ; 

501 cf. Hand, lat. Styl. p. 8302),! is naturally found more frequently in 

th el. the epistles than in the historical books of the N.T., but has not 
always been considered by expositors from the right point of view. 
Since it produces in general a sharp and rapid advance in the dis- 
course, it gives to the style liveliness and force. The following 

476 different sorts of rhetorical asyndeton (Bhdy. 8S. 448; Kihner 11. 

bth ed. 459 f.) between sentences (for as to asyndeton within a sentence, 
see § 58, 7) may be distinguished. The connecting particles are 
omitted, 

a) When in impassioned discourse a series of parallel clauses 
are annexed to each other; particularly in a climax (Reiz and 
Lehmann on Lucian vy. hist. 2 ὃ 35), where the repetition of the 
connective would make the discourse drag. Mark iv. 39 σιώπα, 
πεφίμωσο, 1 Cor. iv. 8 ἤδη κεκορεσμένοι ἐστέ" ἤδη ἐπλουτήσατε, 
χωρὶς ἡμῶν ἐβασιλεύσατε, xiii. 4-8 ; xiv.26; 1 Thess. v.14; 1 Pet. 
ii. 17; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Cor. vii. 2; Jas. v. 6; 1 Pet. v. 10 etc. 
Similar is Demosth. Phil. 4, p. 54a.; Pantaen. 626a.; Xen. Cyr. 
7, 1, 88; Weber, Demosth. p. 363. 

b) In antitheses, where the force of the contrast is thus made 
to strike the reader more pointedly: 1 Cor. xv. 48 f. σπείρεται ἐν 
ἀτιμίᾳ, ἐγείρεται ἐν δόξῃ, σπείρεται ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ, ἐγείρεται ἐν δυνάμει, 
σπείρ. σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἐγείρ. σῶμα πνευματικόν, .}88. 1. 19 πᾶς ἄνθρω- 
πος ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαε, βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι, cf. further, Mark 
xvi. 6; Jno. iv. 22; vi. 63; viii. 41, Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 144 and 
Plat. Protag. p. 52. So, in general, in the counterpoising of sen- 
tences, as Acts xxv. 12 καίσαρα ἐπικέκλησαι, ἐπὶ καίσαρα πορεύσῃ, 
ef. Eurip. Iphig. Aul. 464. 

561 c) Especially when a reason or explanation is subjoined to a 
statement (Krii. p. 223), or an application or exhortation is de- 
duced from what has been said (Stallb. Plat. Alcib. 2 p. 819), 
Rev. xxii. 10 μὴ σφραγίσῃς τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας Tod βιβλίου 
τούτου" ὁ καιρὸς ἐγγύς ἐστιν, Jno. iv. 24; viii. 18; xvii. 17 ; Rom. 
vi. 9; 1 Cor. vii. 4,15; 2 Cor. xii. 11; Rev. xvi. 6,15; 1 Pet. 
v. 8; 2 Pet. ii. 16 (Rev. xiv. 5 var.) ; Heb. iii. 12 βλέπετε (cf. vss. 
7-11) μήποτε ἔσται ἔν τινι ὑμῶν καρδία πονηρὰ ἀπιστίας, 1 Cor. 


vi. 18; v. 7,18; vii. 28; 2 Cor. xi. 80 (see Mey.) ; Jno. xii. 35. 


1 See Dissen 2 excurs. to the Gotha ed. of Pindar ; also Hm. in Jahn’s Jahrbb. I. 54 ff. ; 
further Négelsbach’s Notes on the Iliad, p. 266 ff. As to Latin, ef. Ramshorn, S. 514f. 
For the Hebrew, many examples (which, indeed, require sifting) are given by Nolde, 
Concordant. particul. p. 313 sqq. 


§ 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. 5389 


As a distinct species of asyndeton that construction deserves notice, 
which, after a declaration, appends a discussion of it by repeating 

the substantive without «ai, as in Jno. x. 11 ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ 
καλός" ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλὸς THY ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ τίθησιν ὑπὲρ τῶν προβά- 
των, xv.13; 1 Cor. νι]. 3. In such passages we need only supply 

in thought a ὅτε (yap) or οὖν (ὥςτε), in order to feel how the 
expression would thus be weakened, ef. Lys. in Nicomach. 28 ; 
Aesch. Ctesiph. 48 (Kritz, Sallust. 1. 184). Lastly, the amplifica- 502 
tion of a thought is not unfrequently introduced asyndetically, as Mes 
in Heb. xi. 3. 


Clauses appended ἀσυνδέτως, the expositors, in accordance with a prev- 
alent impropriety, are fond of bringing into connection with what precedes 
by the insertion of particles, and thus the rhetorical effect of the omission 
of the conjunction is entirely overlooked, e.g. 1 Cor. iii. 17; vii. 23; Jas. 
y. ὃ, see Pott in loc. With similar impropriety the copyists have often 
inserted a connective. 


3. Sentences are connected with each other most simply by the 

copulative particles καί and re (negatively by οὐδέν, which denote 
nothing beyond mere annexation (see § 53). Hence in historical 
style, according to Oriental simplicity, the transition from one fact 
to another is often made by them, —— by «ai in the Gospels and the 
Acts, te (Mdv. S. 212) being used almost exclusively in Acts; cf. 477 
καί Matt. iv. 23-25 ; vii. 25; viii. 23-25; ix. 1-4; xiii. 538-58 ; Shed 
Mark i.13; ti. 1f.; Jno. ii. 7 f. 13-16; iii. 22; iv. 27; v. 9; 
Acts ii. 1-4; xii. 7-9, 24-26; τε Acts xii. 6, 12,17; xiii. 4, 46, 
50, 52; xiv. 11-13, 21; xv. 4,6; xvi. 23, 34; xvii. 26; xviii. 4, 
ΧΟ 7" aix. ΡΟ 11s xxi By Ts “xxv. 2; xxvit. 3; 8, 29’; “xxviii. 22 
In particular, after a specification of time in an mdependent clause 
the event is annexed by καί, as in Mark xv. 25 ἦν ὥρα τρίτη καὶ 
ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν, Jno. xi. 55 ἦν ἐγγὺς τὸ πάσχα καὶ ἀνέβησαν 
᾿ πολλοί, iv. 35 ete. (ef. § ὅ8, 8). With the Greeks this became an 
established form when the specification of time was to be made 
prominent, see Mdv. 213 f. 

Narration is continued, however, still more regularly by means 
of the well-defined connecting particles δέ and οὖν (see § 53). 562 
These, since the first adds something other, different, new, and the 
second indicates the sequence, are in a loose application peculiarly 
adapted to the historical style. Hence the N.T. writers, by an 


1 What Rost, 8.723 f., says of this re connecting clauses in Attic prose scarcely finds 
corroboration in Luke. 


540 § 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. 


interchange of καί, δέ, οὖν, imparted to their narration a certain 
variety, which even in the Gospels veiled the Hebraistic complex 
ion. Of. Jno. ii. 1 («al twice); 2 (δέν) ; 3 (Kal); ὃ (καί), 8 Ff. 
(δέν) ; iv. 4 (δέ) ; ὃ (odv); 6 (δέ and ody); 89 (dé); 40 (odr); 
41 (xai); 42 (re); Acts xii. 1-3 (δέ four times) ; 5 (οὖν and δέ) ; 
6 (δέ) ; Τ (καί twice and dé); 8 (δέ twice and kai’) ; 9 (καί twice 
and δέ) ; 10 (καί twice and δέ) ; 11 (xa/) ; 12 (re); 13 (δέν); 14 
(καί and dé); 15 (δέ three times) ; 16 (δέ twice) ; 17 (δέ, τε, and 
Kal); 18 (δέν) ; 19 (δέ and καῦ ; 20 (δέ twice) ; 21, 22 (dé); 23 
(δέ and καί) ; 24 f. (δέ) ; xxv. 1 (οὖν) ; 2 (re); 4,5 (odv); 6, 
7 (δέ), etc. | 
Not much more characteristic, yet aiming at greater diversity, is the 
508 connection, in the historical style, effected by τότε (especially in Matt.), 


τὰ od. μετὰ τοῦτο or ταῦτα (especially in John and Luke), ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις 
etc. (in isolated cases εἶτα). 

The polysyndeton between clauses not purely narrative is designed to 
give them prominence as individual portions of a compound sentence, e.g. 
Jno. x. 8 τούτῳ ὃ θυρωρὸς ἀνοίγει καὶ τὰ πρόβατα τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούει 
καὶ τὰ ἴδια πρόβατα φωνεῖ κατ᾽ ὄνομα καὶ ἐξάγει αὐτά vss. 9, 12 ; οὗ Acts 
xiii. 86; xvii. 28; 1 Cor. xii. 4 ff. 

4, The connection of sentences is more close when it is based 
on ἃ contrast: either in general, when two sentences are joined 
together, like an arsis and thesis, by μέν... δέ (Mdv. 215) or καί 
... καί (Mdy. 212), negatively by οὔτε... οὔτε, as Acts xxii. 9 
TO μὲν φῶς ἐθεάσαντο, τὴν ὃ ὲ φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν, xxiii.8; xxv. 11; 
i. 5 (οὗ 8 δ8, 7); Mark ix. 18 καὶ ᾿Ηλίας ἐλήλυθεν καὶ ἐποίησαν 
αὐτῷ ὅσα ἤθελον, Jno. ix. 87 see § 53, 4; or when an affirmative 
sentence is opposed to a negative, or vice versa, as Jno. ili. 17 οὐκ 
ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα 

418 σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος, Rom. ix. 1 ἀλήθειαν λέγω ἐν Χριστῷ, οὐ ψεύδομαι, 

θὲ οἱ, of, § 55, 8. 

To this form of expression (antithesis) are likewise to be referred, 

a. Comparative sentences, as Matt. xii. 40 ὥςπερ ἣν ᾿Ιωνᾶς ἐν τῇ 
κοιλίᾳ τοῦ κήτους τρεῖς ἡμέρας K. τρεῖς νύκτας, οὕτως ἔσται ὁ υἱὸς 
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τ. γῆς, Matt. v. 48 ἔσεσθε ὑμεῖς τέλειοι, ὡς 
ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν τέλειός ἐστιν, Jno. iii. 14 καθώς Μωῦσῆς ὕψωσεν ... 
οὕτως ὑψωθῆναι δεῖ, Luke vi. 81 καθὼς θέλετε, ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑμῖν 
οἱ ἄνθρωποι ... καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς ὁμοίως. 

563 Ῥ. Temporal sentences (see ὃ 53,8), as Luke i. 23 ὡς ἐπλήσθησαν 
αἱ ἡμέραι... ἀπῆλθεν, Acts xxvii. 1; Jno. iv. 1; Matt. xvii. 25 
ὅτε εἰςῆλθεν eis τὴν οἰκίαν... προέφθασεν, Vi. 2 ὅταν οὖν ποιῇς 
ἐλεημοσύνην, μὴ σαλπίσῃς ἔμπροσθέν σου, etc. 


§ 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. 541 


c. Even conditional sentences (8 53, 8) 1 Cor. ix. 17 εἰ ἑκὼν 
τοῦτο πράσσω, μισθὸν ἔχω, Luke vii. 39 εἰ ἦν προφήτης, ἐγίνωσκεν 
dv, Jno. vii. 17 ἐάν τις θέχῃ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν, γνώσεται etc. 
That these also are properly to be referred to this head, is apparent 
from the structure, elsewhere examined, that occurs in Jas. v. 13 
κακοπαθεῖ τις ἐν ὑμῖν, προςευχέσθω, where the conditional clause 
makes its appearance as independent: some one among you is 
afflicted (1 suppose the case), let him pray; 1 Cor. vii. 21 δοῦλος 
ἐκλήθης, μή σοι μελέτω, cf. Jas. ii. 19 f.; Mdv. 224. Here εἰ has 
by some been unwarrantably supplied ; and it is equally inadmis- 
sible to regard the first clause as interrogative, see above, p. 285 ; 
ef. Bhdy. 385; Dissen, Demosth. cor. p. 284 sq. So in Latin Terent. 
Eunuch, 2, 2, 21 negat quis, nego; ait, ajo. Heind. Horat. serm. 

1, 1, 45; Κυϊίχ, Sall. 11, 349. 

5. In the cases just adduced a.—c. (as well as in causal sen- 
tences) a protasis and apodosis are contrasted (Luke i. 1; v. 4; 
Matt. iv. 3; v. 13; Heb. ii. 14, etc.), though the beginning of the 
latter is not in most cases specially marked, as it is in German by 504 
_80— (hence sometimes it is doubtful where the apodosis begins, th ed 
as in Jas. iii. 3 f.; iv. 15, etc.) ; for when οὕτως seems to be em- 
ployed for this purpose, or when εἶτα, τότε, and in hypothetical 
constructions ἀλλά, δέ (Jacobs, Ael. anim. p. 27 sq. praef.), dpa 
(οὖν Ὁ see ὃ 63), is put before the apodosis, as in Mark xiii. 14 ; 
Matt. xii. 28; Jno. vii. 10; xi. 6; xii. 16; 1 Cor. i. 23; xv. 54; 
xvi. 2; 2 Cor. xiii. 4; 1 Thess. v. 3, etc., it is intended to give 
prominence to the apodosis, — by οὕτως in particular to refer again 
to the circumstances expressed in the protasis. 

It is only in comparative sentences that 

a. A οὕτως or καί before the apodosis corresponds often to the 
ὡς, ὥςπερ. καθώς of the protasis, Rom. v. 15; 2 Cor. xi. 3; 1 Thess. 

ii. 7; Matt. xii. 40; Jno. v. 21; xv. 4,95; xx. 21 (οὕτως is the 
most regular correlate of ὥςπερ). Οὕτως after a conditional 
clause was formerly thought to be purely pleonastic. But in Rev. 
xi. 5 οὕτως means hoe modo (see the sentence preceding), and in 
1 Thess. iy. 14 it refers to the similarity of the lot of believers to 
that of Christ (ἀπέθανε καὶ ἀνέστην ; and these instances have no 
resemblance to those adduced by Mtth. 1457. (Still less is οὕτως 564 
redundant after participles in Jno. iv. 6; Acts xx. 11; see ὃ 65,9.) 479 
In the case of grouping of protasis and apodosis, the protasis is Sth ed. 
usually repeated in a distinct form after the apodosis, so as to 
produce apparently a double apodosis, as in Rev. ii.5 μετανόησον " π΄ 


542 § 60, CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. 


εἰ δὲ μὴ (μετανοεῖς), ἔρχομαί σοι ταχύ .. .; ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσῃς, Where 
the length of the sentence occasioned the repetition. This, how- 
ever, is probably not the case in Matt. v. 18, see § 65, 6, p. 612. 
6. Objective, consecutive, final, and causal sentences are con- 
ceived as distinctly dependent on, and consequently subordinate 
to, a leading clause, and are accordingly presented in the form of 
dependent sentences introduced respectively by ὅτι, ὡς, by ὥςτε, 
ὡς (not iva, see ὃ 53,10, 6 p. 457 sq.) also οὖν, dpa, by ἵνα or 
ὅπως, by yap, ὅτι ete. see § 53 (where the relation of grammatical 
dependence is sometimes expressed also by the indirect moods of 
the verb). Causal are akin to objective sentences; hence both 
are introduced by ὅτε (quod), signifying either because or that. 
Ei (like the Latin si) is so used apparently in one class of cases, 
after verbs denoting an affection of the mind, where the objec- 
tive ὅτε might have been expected (Hoogeveen, doctr. partic. 
ed. Schiitz, p. 228 sq.; Jacob, Lucian. Toxar. p. 52; Mdv. 225), 
e.g. Mark xv. 44 ἐθαύμασεν εἰ ἤδη τέθνηκεν miratus est si jam 
mortuus fuerit, 1 Jno. iii. 13 μὴ θαυμάζετε, εἰ μισεῖ ὑμᾶς ὁ κόσμος 
οἵ. Fr. Mare. p. 702. But ὅτι is employed when the occasion of 
surprise (grief etc.) is a positive matter of fact, εἰ when it hovers 
before the speaker’s mind as merely a possibility, seems to him 
doubtful, or at least is to be represented as doubtful: marvel not, 
if the world hate you (Weber, Demosth. p. 535; Mtth. 1474 f. ; 
Rost 622). Similar is Acts xxvi. 8. Sometimes modesty or dif- 
fidence has led to the selection of this latter form of expression, 
505 just as we sometimes hear: he begged him 7/ he would not promise 
the. (Germ. er bat ihn,.ob u.s.w.). Cf. with this Acts viii. 22. 


The affinity of objective and relative sentences is illustrated in Acts 
xiv. 27 ἀνήγγελλον, ὅσα ἐποίησεν ὃ θεὸς per αὐτῶν καὶ ὅτι ἤνοιξεν etc. 


7. a. Relative sentences still more distinctly assume a dependent 
character when they are of an appositive nature, whether more or 
less requisite to complete the sentence ; as, Matt. ii. 9 ὁ ἀστήρ, 
ὃν εἶδον, προῆγεν αὐτούς, Rom. v. 14 Addy, ὅς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ pér- 
λοντος, 1 Cor. i. 80 Χριστῷ, ὃς ἐγενήθη σοφία ἡμῖν etc., Acts i. 2 ; 
xv. 10. But the form οἵ ἃ relative clause is adopted in two other 
cases: a. when the discourse, particularly a narration, is con- 
tinued by és and that is resolvable into «at οὗτος, as in Acts xiii. 43 
ἠκολούθησαν πολλοί... τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ τῷ Βαρνάβᾳ, οἵτινες 
προςλαλοῦντες ἔπειθον αὐτούς etc., Acts xvi. 34 ἔβαλον εἰς φυλακὴν 

565 παραγγείλαντες τῷ δεσμοφύλακε ... ὃς παραγγελίαν τοιαύτην etc., 


§ 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. 543 


Luke x. 80; Acts iii. 3; xiii. 81; xiv. 9; xvi. 14, 16; xvii. 10; 
xix. 25; xxi.4; xxii. 4; xxiii. 14; xxviii. 23; 8. when the Subject 
or Predicate is a relative sentence, e.g. Acts xiii. 25 ἔρχεται, οὗ 
οὐκ εἰμὶ ἄξιος τὸ ὑπόδημα λῦσαι, VS. 48 ἐπίστευσαν, ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγ- 
μένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, vs. 81 ; Jno. xi. 3 ὃν φιλεῖς, ἀσθενεῖ, Matt. 
x. 27; xxiii. 12; Jno. i. 46; iii. 834; xv. 7; 1 Juno. ii. 5; iv. 6; 
Acts xiii. 37 ; Rom. viii. 25. In this case the relative clause is 
often placed before the principal, as in Jno. ili. 34; xiii. 7; 1 Jno. 
iii. 17; Acts x. 15; Rom. viii. 25, or there is a reference from 
the latter to the relative clause by means of a demonstrative, as 
in Matt. v. 19; Luke ix. 26; Jno. v. 19; 1 Jno. ii. 5. 


Not unfrequently several relative clauses are combined, as in 1 Pet. 
iii. 19-22, either as co-ordinate, as in Acts xiv. 15f.; 1. 2 ἢ; iii. 2f.; 
xxvii. 23; xxiv. 6, 8 (Tdf.), or as subordinate one to another, as in Acts 
xiii. 31 (Ἰησοῦς) ὃς ὥφθη τοῖς συναναβᾶσιν αὐτῷ.... οἵτινες viv εἰσὶν 


/ 


μάρτυρες αὐτοῦ etc. xxv. 15 f.; xxvi. 7; Rom. i. 2, 5, 6. 


b. Indirect interrogative sentences (which in classic Greek were 
marked by the special form of the interrogatives ὅςτις, ὁποῖος, 
ὁπόσος etc.), as Jno. vi. 64 ἤδει τίνες εἰσὶν οἱ μὴ πιστεύοντες, Matt. 
x. 11 ἐξετάσατε τίς ἄξιός ἐστιν, πο. iii. 8 οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται 
κ. ποῦ ὑπάγει. Acts x. 18 ἐπυνθάνετο εἰ Σίμων ἐνθάδε ξενίζεται, Luke 
Xxii. 28 ἤρξαντο συζητεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς τὸ τίς ἄρα εἴη ἐξ αὐτῶν ὁ 
τοῦτο μέλλων πράσσειν, Acts xxv. 20 ἀπορούμενος ἐγὼ... ἔλεγον, 
εἰ βούλοιτο πορεύεσθαι etc. Cf. on this Schleiermacher, Hermen. 
S. 131. 

8. We have thus far spoken of the connection of sentences 
with each other by certain single connective words, among which, 
speaking somewhat loosely, the relatives also may be reckoned ; 
but connection may also be effected by means of forms of inflection, 
especially the Infinitive and the Participle, in such a manner as to 
render grammatically the subordinate clauses constituent parts 
of the principal clause : 

a. 1 Cor. xvi. 3 τούτους πέμψω ἀπενεγκεῖν τὴν χάριν (iva 
amrevéyxwot), Mark iv. 3 ἐξῆλθεν ὁ σπείρων τοῦ σπεῖραι, Acts 
xxvi. 16 εἰς τοῦτο ὥφθην σοι, προχειρίσασθαί σε, Phil. i. Τ διὰ 
τὸ ἔχειν με ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμᾶς (ὅτι ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ κ. ἔχω), Acts xviii. 2 ; 
XXvii. 9; xix. 1 ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ τὸν ᾿Απολλὼ εἶναι ἐν Κορίνθῳ, xx. 1 
μετὰ τὸ παύσασθαι τὸν θόρυβον ... ὁ Παῦλος ἐξῆλθεν. Especially 
do Infinitives with prepositions serve to give compactness and 


480 
6th ed, 


506 
Tth ed. 


roundness to sentences, and so too the Acc. with the Inf. which 


566 


481 
6th ef 


544 § 60, CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. 


usually represents an objective clause ; as, Heb. vi. 11 ἐπιθυμοῦμεν 
ἕκαστον ὑμῶν τὴν αὐτὴν ἐνδείκνυσθαι σπουδήν, 1 Tim. ii. 8 βούλομαι 
προςεύχεσθαι ἄνδρας etc. ὃ 44, 3, p. 821. 

b. 2 Cor. vii. 1 ταύτας ἔχοντες ἐπαγγελίας καθαρίσωμεν ἑαυτούς, 
Luke iv. 8δ ; Acts xxv. 13 κατήντησαν ἀσπασόμενοι τὸν Φῆστον, 
Acts xxv. 1 Φῆστος ἐπιβὰς τῇ ἐπαρχίᾳ... ἀνέβη, Luke iv. 2 ἤγετο 
ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ πειραζόμενος, Acts xii. 10 ἐπέμενε κρούων (ὃ 45, 
4). Particularly are participles in the Gen. abs. employed thus 
to denote accessory circumstances, local or temporal (§ 30 note, 
p- 207), e.g. Acts xxv. 13 ἡμερῶν διαγενομένων τινῶν ᾿Αγρίππας 
καὶ Βερνίκη κατήντησαν, x. 9 ἐκείνων τῇ πόλει ἐγγιζόντων ἀνέβη: 
Πέτρος, Luke iv. 40 δύνοντος τοῦ ἡλίου πάντες... ἤγαγον, ix. 42 
ἔτι προςερχομένου αὐτοῦ ἔῤῥηξεν αὐτὸν τὸ δαιμόνιον, Mark xiv. 8 καὶ 
ὄντος αὐτοῦ ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ Σίμωνος τοῦ λεπροῦ, κατακειμένου 
αὐτοῦ, ἦλθεν γυνή etc. And this gradually became so usual a 
mode of expression, that it was employed even when the subject 
was the same as that of the principal clause, see p. 208. Besides, 
one and the same principal sentence frequently contains several 
participial constructions co-ordinate or subordinate one to another, 
by which means the structure of the sentence is rendered more 
organic, e.g. Acts xii. 25 Βαρνάβας καὶ Sadros ὑπέστρεψαν ἐξ 
“Ἱερουσαλήμ, πληρώσαντες τὴν διακονίαν, συμπαραλαβόντες 
καὶ ᾿Ιωάννην, xvi. 21 ἔξυπνος γενόμενος ὁ δεσμοφύλαξ καὶ ἰδὼν 


> la Ν , nn -“ / / 
ἀνεῳγμένας tas θύρας τῆς φυλακῆς, σπασάμενος μάχαιραν 


507 


ἤμελλεν ἑαυτὸν ἀναιρεῖν, νομίζων ἐκπεφευγέναι τοὺς δεσμίους, 
Xxlil. 27 τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον συλλημφθέντα ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων 
καὶ μέλλοντα ἀναιρεῖσθαι ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐπιστὰς σὺν τῷ στρατεύ- 
ματι ἐξειλάμην αὐτόν, μαθών etc. Acts xiv. 19; xvili. 22f,; xxv. 6f.; 
2 Tim. i. 4; Tit. ii. 13; 1 Cor. xi. 4; Luke vii. 37 f. 

Hence in general it must be noticed, that in this manner com- 
pound sentences receive not merely greater variety, but also a 
greater degree of periodic compactness. This latter result is 
effected still more decidedly by the blending of two independent 
propositions into one, Attraction (§ 66), for which purpose relatives 
possess very extensive aptitude (§ 24). Attraction, too, is itself 
very diversified, and occurs even in the N. T. in many forms, from 
the simple (as in Luke v. 9 ἐπὶ τῇ ἄγρᾳ τῶν ἰχθύων, ἣ συνέλαβον, 


Τὰ οἱ, Acts iv. 18 ἐπεγίνωσκον αὐτοὺς ὅτι σὺν τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἦσαν) to the 


complex, as in Rom.iii. 8 τί ἔτε κἀγὼ ὡς ἁμαρτωλὸς κρίνομαι ; καὶ 
μή, καθὼς βλασφημούμεθα καὶ καθώς φασίν τινες ἡμᾶς λέγειν, ὅτι 
“ποιήσωμεν τὰ κακά, ἵνα ἔλθη τὰ ἀγαθά ; 


§ 60, CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. 548 


Note. In contrast with this intertwining of clauses stands the practice 
of forming a proposition where a simple Infinitive would have sufficed ; 
as, Mark xiv. 21 καλὸν αὐτῷ εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη ὃ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος, 1 Jno. v. 2 
ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν, Ott... ὅταν τὸν θεὸν ἀγαπῶμεν (ii. 3), Acts xxvii. 42 
τῶν στρατιωτῶν βουλὴ ἐγένετο, ἵνα τοὺς δεσμώτας ἀποκτείνωσιν (on the other 567 
hand, vs. 12), Rev. xix. 8. This mode of expression is not always adopted 
from a love of amplification (a peculiarity of the later language), but is 
employed sometimes to*give more forcible prominence, and sometimes to 
attain a more flexible construction. 


9. By these various means of connection, the style of the N. T. 
is shaped into an organic structure which is by no means destitute 
of variety, though it is inferior in this respect to the style of Greek 
authors. In this way are constructed periods even of considerable 
length, particularly in Luke (and especially in the Acts), e.g. Luke 
i. 1-3 ; Acts xii. 13 f.; xv. 24-26; xvii. 24f.; xx. 9, 20f.; xxiii. 10; 
xxvi. 10-14, 16-18; Rom. i. 1-7; 1 Pet. iii. 18-22; Heb. ii. 2-4; 
2 Pet. i. 2-7. At the same time it must be admitted that, after 
the beginning of a long period has been made, the thread of the 
arrangement is frequently broken, and the sentence terminates in 
some kind of anacoluthon or remains quite unfinished Rom. iii. 8 ; 
xii. 6-8 ; xvi. 25 f.27; Mark vi. 8f.; Gal. ii. 4f.; 2 Pet. ii. 4-8; 
2 Thess. ii. 3 f.; see § 63, or at least is commenced anew 2 Pet. 
ii. 5 sq.; Eph. v. 27; Jno. viii. 53; Rev. 11. 2,9. The N. T. writers, 482 —~ 
further, have desisted from one mode of constructing ramified δ οὐ, 
sentences, in that they regularly do not incorporate quotations, 
though but of small extent, in an indirect form, but express them 
directly, and without introducing them always by ὅτι as an external 
connective or by λέγων, as in Matt. ix. 18; xxvi.72; Mark xi. 32; 
Luke v. 12; Jno. i. 20; xxi. 17; Gal. i. 23; Acts iii. 22; v. 23, 
etc. They often, even when they begin with an indirect quotation 
of others’ words, pass over very soon into the oratio directa, as in 
Luke v. 14; Actsi.4; xxiii. 22; see § 63. The same takes place 
in particular after verbs of requesting; in which case instead of 
subjoining the request indirectly, by means of an Inf. or a clause 
with ἵνα (§ 44, 8), the precise words of the petitioner are stated, 
as in Luke xiv. 18 ἐρωτῶ σε, ἔχε με παρῃτημένον, vs. 19; v. 12; 
Jno. iv. 81; ix. 2; Phil. iv. 3; Acts ii. 40; xvi. 15; xxi. 39; 
Matt. viii. 31; xviii. 29; 1 Cor. iv.16. However, what the style 
loses thus in compactness, it gains on the other hand in animation 
and vividness. Further, see Schleiermacher, Herm. 131. 


Note. It is interesting to notice, in parallel sections, especially in the 
69 


546 § 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 


first three gospels, the variety as respects the structure and connection of 
508 sentences. Luke will be found by such comparison invariably the most 
ith ed, expert writer, and more careful than the others also in the selection of his 

words; (he prefers, for instance, idiomatic expressions, verba composita 

and decomposita). This subject, however, belongs to N. T. Stylistics. 


568 §61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES, ESPECIALLY WHEN 
IRREGULAR (HYPERBATON). 


1. The arrangement of the individual words of a sentence is, 
in general, determined by the order in which the conceptions are 
formed, and by the specific relation which the different: parts of 
the sentence (as groups of words) bear to each other. This rela- 
tion requires, for instance, that the adjective should regularly be 
placed in immediate contact with its substantive, the adverb with 
its verb or adjective, the Genitive with its governing noun, the 
preposition with its case, and one member of an antithesis with 
the other. In particulars, however, the connection of a clause 
with what precedes (cf. Heb. xi. 1; 1 Tim. vi.6; Col. ii, 9; 
Phil. iv. 10), the greater (rhetorical) emphasis to be given toa 
word, even to a greater or less degree the requirements of euphony, 
regulate the respective position of the words. Sometimes, how- 
ever, the arrangement depends on the nature or the conventional 

‘importance of the ideas (e.g. terra marique, etc.). It is not nec- 
essary that the word to be emphasized should be placed at the 
commencement of the clause ; it may even stand at the end (see 
e.g. Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 74), and im any case in that position 
which from the nature of the sentence gives it the most striking 
prominence. For example, intentional connection with what pre- 

483 cedes causes a relative pronoun, even in an oblique case, usually 

tthe. to begin the clause etc. The position of words is determined 
therefore, by the laws of the succession of thought and by rhetorical 
aims (Hm. Soph. Trach. p. 131). And although these leave great 
latitude to the spontaneous mental movements of the writer, and 
are never felt by the practised author as trammels ; yet, just because 
the arrangement of words decidedly serves logical and rhetorical 
purposes, only a small part of it usually becomes so habitual with 
an individual writer that it can be considered as a prominent 
characteristic of his style. 


1 No very thorough treatise is known to me on the arrangement of words in Greek. 
Kiihner’s attempt, however, to vindicate for, this subject (under the name of Topih) its 


861. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 5AT 


2. The arrangement of words in the N. T. is in the main deter- 509 
mined by the same principles as in the Greek prose authors, for poe 
these principles are but to a very small extent confined to any 
particular nation. It must be remarked, however, that 

a. The arrangement of words is bolder and more diversified in 
the didactic writings, particularly those of Paul, than in the his- 
torical books; since in the former the rhetorical element is more 
influential, while in the (synoptical) gospels the Hebraistic type 
of arrangement predominates. 

b. Especially in the narrative style, a wide separation of the 
two principal parts of a sentence, the Subject and the verb (Pred- 
icate), is avoided ; and, in accordance with the Hebrew mode of 
expression, sometimes the verb is advanced nearer to the Subject, 
sometimes, when the Subject is complex, only the principal Subject 
precedes the verb, and the others follow (see § 58, 6), lest the 
attention should be kept too long in suspense. Relative clauses, 
too, are if possible so placed as to be introduced only after the full 
enunciation of the principal clause. On the whole, the arrange- 
ment of words in the N. T. is simple and free from all affectation, 
as well as from stiffness or monotony. Gersdorf, in his well-known 
work, has professed to point out numerous peculiarities of indi- 
vidual N. T. writers; but on strict examination it will be found 
that a) he has not duly investigated the several particulars on 
which the arrangement of words is in every case dependent ; and 
b) under the impression that it might become the invariable usage 
of a writer to place e.g. the adverb before or after the verb, he has 
propounded and partly executed a species of critical inquiry that 
merits the charge of prejudgment. A philosophical work on this κῆρι 
subject would be a great acquisition to verbal criticism. 


It is not a matter of indifference whether a writer employs τὸ πνεῦμα 
“πνεῦμα τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ (cf. § 20, 1), or, without the articles, 
πνεῦμα θεοῦ or θεοῦ πν. Every individual passage of the N. T. must be 
elucidated according to its respective stylistic conformation. To lose sight 


τοῦ θεοῦ or τὸ 


due place in grammar deserves thanks (ii. 629 ff.) ; Mdv. also has collected some observa- 
tions on the subject (Syntax, S. 258 ff.). In regard to Latin, special inquiries were 
previously instituted in connection with the doctrine of sound, and the subject is ably 
though briefly handled by Zumpt, Grammat. S. 626 ff.; cf. also Hand, Lehrb. des lat. 
Styls S. 307 ff.; Gernhard, commentatt. gramm. P. 8 (Jen. 1828. 4to.). On the ancient 
languages in general, see H. Weil, de V’ordre des mots ‘dans les langues anciennes ete. 
Paris, 1844. 8vo. As respects the habitude of individual writers in the arrangement 
of words, Tzschirner, for instance, who strove after a prose rhythm, could not fail to 
be recognized in any one of his writings. 


548 § 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 


of this, neglecting the Codd. (as well as the ancient versions, and the 
more or less free quotations in the Fathers), and invariably to attribute 
to a writer one and the same arrangement of words, is empirical pedantry. 
If the adjective is usually placed thus: φόβος μέγας, ἔργον ἀγαθόν, or the 
570 adverb in reference to its adjective thus: χαλεπὸς λίαν, μεγάλη σφόδρα 
510 (Strabo 17, 801), the arrangement is very natural. The opposite arrange- 
ith el ment either aims at giving prominence to the adjectival or adverbial notion, 
which with many writers may be caused by an antithesis habitual to them 
(καλὰ ἔργα is used for the most part by Paul) ; or the (antithetical) nature 
of a particular adjectival notion may require that it should precede, like 
ἄλλος, εἷς, ἴδιος, etc. That 6 ἄνθρωπος οὗτος should occur more frequently 
than οὗτος 6 ἄνθρωπος is likewise not surprising. The latter arrangement 
implies an emphasis on the pronoun (this man, no other), which is in place 
only when one is speaking δεικτικῶς or intensively. The predominance 
of the latter arrangement in John (Gersdorf 444 f.) is, in the first place, 
by no means decided, and secondly, the reason for such arrangement may 
be easily perceived in all the passages in which it occurs. Ταῦτα πάντα 
Luke xii. 80 and πάντα ταῦτα Matt. vi. 32 are not exactly of the same 
import (Gersd. 447 f.): the former means THESE THINGS all together ; 
the latter, aL these. In the first expression, πάντα is a closer specification 
of ταῦτα ; in the second, πάντα is pointed out demonstratively by means 
of ταῦτα. ἸΠάντα ταῦτα is undoubtedly the more rare, much like omnia 
haee in Latin, yet in Matt. xxiii. 36; xxiv. 33 f.; Luke vii. 18 it is the 
better established reading, ef. Bengel on Matt. xxiv. 33. That the 
narrators when they subjoin something chronologically say ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς 
ἡμέραις and the like, will not be considered by any observant reader as an 
arbitrary deviation from the usual sequence: ἡ πόλες ἐκείνη. To what 
purpose are remarks such as: πάλιν, ἐκεῖθεν ete. are placed sometimes 
before and sometimes after?* Finally, I cannot imagine how Gersdorf 
(S. 835) could so misjudge the place of the adjective in Matt. xiii. 27 ; 
xv. 20 as even to be inclined to correet the text. When we find in Matt. 
xv. 84 πόσους ἄρτους ἔχετε ; of δὲ εἶπον - ἑπτὰ καὶ ὀλίγα ἰχθύδια but in 
Mark viii. 7 καὶ εἶχον ἰχθύδια ὀλίγα, the antithesis with ἑπτὰ required that 
ὀλίγα should precede ; whilst in the latter passage bread and Jish are con- 
trasted: they had also in fish a small provision. That Paul writes in 
1 Tim. v. 23 οἴνῳ ὀλίγῳ and James iii. 5 ὀλίγον (var. ἡλίκον) πῦρ, nobody 
probably will think strange who studies language with attention. In 
Jno. v. 22 τὴν κρίσιν πᾶσαν δέδωκε τῷ υἱῷ, πᾶσαν is very appropriately 
485 placed immediately before δέδωκε, as it belongs to it (he gave it to him not 
6th οἱ, in part, but wholly, 1 Cor. xii. 12), cf. also Matt. ix.35; Rom. iii. 9; xii. 4; 


1 Even the more preeise remark of van Hengel, Philipp. p. 201, on πάλιν as used in 
Paul’s epistles, I cannot admit as a canon according to which critical or exegetical 
inquiries could implicitly be conducted. As to Phil. ii. 28 I adhere to the exposition 
propounded in § 45, 4 note 1 p. 346. 


§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 549 


Acts xvi. 26; xvii. 21; 1 Cor. x. 1 (Xen. Hell. 2,3, 40; Thue. 7, 60 etc.). 
Along with the arrangement πᾶσα ἧ πόλις occurs also ὁ πᾶς νόμος Gal. v. 14, 

τὸν πάντα χρόνον Acts xx. 18; 1 Tim. i. 16 (Thue. 4,61; Isocr. Dem. 571 
p- 1; Herod. 1, 14,10; Stallb. Phil. 48). On the simple precedence of 

an emphatic word (Jno. vi. 57; viii. 25; ix. 31; xiii. 6; Rom. vii. 23; 
xiii. 14; 1 Cor. xii. 22; xiv. 2; xv. 44; Luke ix. 20; xii. 30; xvi. 11; 
Heb. x. 30; Jas. iii. 3; 1 Pet. iii. 21; 2 Pet. i. 21), no remark is neces- 
sary. Yet see under 3. The order in the apostolic benediction χάρις 511 
ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη, uniformly adhered to as it is (in 1st and 2d Pet. also), is Tth a, 
certainly intended to point out χάρις as the principal and more comprehen- 

sive idea, to which εἰρήνη is added as a consequent. The Vocative, with 

or without ὦ, either precedes the sentence, — that is, when it expresses a 

cry Mark xiv. 37, or as an address is intended to rouse the attention for 
what follows Matt. viii. 2; xv. 28; xviii.32; xxv.26; Mark ix.19; Luke 

viii. 48; xxiv. 25; Jno. vi. 68; xiii. 6; xxi. 15 sqq.; Acts i. 11; ii. 29; 
v.35; vii. 59; ix. 13; xiii. 10; xxv. 24; Rom.ix. 20; Gal. iii.1; 1 Tim. 

vi. 20, — or is intercalated into the sentence, when, that is, the attention 

of the person addressed is assumed, and what follows is to be referred 
solely to him Matt. ix. 22; xvi.17; xx. 31; Jno. xii. 15; Acts i. 1; 
xxvi. 19, 24,27; Gal.i.11; Phil. 1.12; iii. 17; Philem. 20; 2 Pet.i.10; 
Rey. xv. 4. The Vocative in this case stands after one word or several, 
according as they are or are not connected in sense Matt. xvi.17; Jno. 

xii. 15; Rey. xv. 4, etc. ; sometimes, when supplementary, it stands at the 

end of the sentence Luke νυ. 8; Jno. xiv. 9; Acts xxvi. 7. 


3. The grounds of every unusual arrangement (transposition) 
of words, when it originates in the writer’s free choice, may with 
greater or less distinctness be ascertained. The following cases 
are to be distinguished : 

a. When the unusual position of the words is occasioned by 
rhetorical causes, and is consequently intentional, as in 1 Pet. ii. 7 
the appositive (Weber, Demosth. p. 152) τοῖς πιστεύουσιν is reserved 
for the conclusion, because the condition as believers, if we believe, 
thus obtains greater prominence, particularly as it is brought so 
close to the antithetical ἀπειθοῦσι. Cf. 1 Jno. v. 13,16; Jno. 
xiii. 14; Rom. xi. 18 ; Heb. vi. 18 (Stallb. Plat. Euthyd. p. 144), 
also Heb. vii. 4 ᾧ καὶ δεκάτην ᾿Αβραὰμ ἔδωκεν ἐκ τῶν ἀκροθινίων. ὁ 
πατριάρχης unto whom Abr. gave even a tenth, the patriarch, 
xi. 17; 1 Pet. iv. 4. Other instances of the same sort are Heb. 
vi. 19 ἣν ὡς ἄγκυραν ἔχομεν τ. ψυχῆς ἀσφαλῆ τε καὶ βεβαίαν καὶ 
eisepxouevny etc. x. 34; 1 Pet. i. 23; 1 Cor. xiii. 1 ἐὰν ταῖς γλώσ- 


1 Cf. with this Demosth. fals. leg. 204 c. εἰμὶ τοίνυν 6 κατηγορῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐγὼ τούτων, 
τούτων δ᾽ οὐδεὶς ἐμοῦ. 


550 § 61, POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 


cals τ. ἀνθρώπων λαλῶ Kai τῶν ἀγγέλων, Acts xxiv. 17; xxvi. 22. 
The Genitive in particular is put last, 1 Thess. i. 6; Juo. vii. 88; 
1 Tim. iii. 6, ete. In giving a word precedence (see above, no. 2), 
antithesis is manifest in 1 Cor. x. 11 ταῦτα τύποι συνέβαινον ἐκείνοις, 
ἐγράφη δὲ πρός etc. Luke xvi. 12; xxiii. 81; Jno. ix. 17; xxi. 21, 
likewise in 2 Cor. ii. 4 ody ἵνα λυπηθῆτε, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀγάπην ἵνα 
γνῶτε, xii.7; 1 Cor. ix.15; Acts xix.4; Rom. xi. 31; Col.iv.16; 
Gal. ii. 10 (Cic. div. 1, 40; Mil. 2 fin. ; Krii. 236), as well as in 
1 Cor. vi. 4 βιωτικὰ μὲν οὖν κριτήρια ἐὰν ἔχητε (such postpone- 
ment of ἐάν is frequent in Demosth., see Klotz, Devar. p. 484) ; 
Rom. xii. 3 ἑκάστῳ ὡς ἐμέρισεν μέτρον πίστεως, 1 Cor. iii.5; viii. 7; 

512 Jno. xiii. 84 (Cic. off. 2,21, 72); 2 Thess. ii. 7 μόνον ὁ κατέχων 

Ἰὰ οἱ. ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται, finally in Rom. viii. 18 οὐκ ἄξια τὰ 
παθήματα τ. νῦν καιροῦ πρὸς τ. μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι, 
Gal. iii. 23; Heb. x. 1; 1 Cor. xii. 22. 

b. At other times we find a closer specification, which only 

occurred to the writer after the sentence had been arranged, 

572 brought in afterwards; as, Acts xxii. 9 τὸ μὲν φῶς ἐθεάσαντο, τὴν 
δὲ φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν τοῦ λαλοῦντός μοι, iv. 33 μεγάλῃ δυνάμει 
ἀπεδίδουν τὸ μαρτύριον οἱ ἀπόστολοι τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ 
κυρίου Ἰησοῦ, Heb. xii. 11 ; Jno. iv. 39; vi. 66; xii.11; 1 Cor. 

A486 x. 27; Luke xix. 47; 1 Pet. 1.13; 2 Pet. iii. 2 (Acts xix. 27); 

Gib el. cf, Arrian. Al. 3, 28, 1 τοὺς ὑπολειφθέντας ἐν τῇ διώξει τῆς oT pa- 
τιᾶς. To this head should probably be referred also Rev. vii. 17. 
In 2 Pet. iii. 1 ἐν αἷς διεγείρω ὑμῶν ἐν ὑπομνήσει τὴν εἰλικρινῆ 
διάνοιαν the words spaced out are thrust into the current of the 
sentence as a subjoined closer specification of διεγείρω. 

c. Words which are to be joined together in sense, are placed 
near each other; as, Rom. ix. 21 ἔχει ἐξουσίαν ὁ κεραμεὺς τ. πηλοῦ 
ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ φυράματος ποιῆσαι etc., 1 Pet. ii. 16; 1 Cor. ii. 11. 
In Eph. ii. 8 φύσει belongs to τέκνα, and accordingly has the most 
suitable place. 

ἃ. Sometimes the transposition is unavoidable; as, Heb. xi. 82 
᾿ἐπιλείψει γάρ με διηγούμενον ὁ χρόνος περὶ Τ᾿ εδεών, Βαράκ τε 
καὶ Σαμψών οἷς. where, since a long series of names follows with 
which in vs. 33 a relative clause is to be connected, no other 
arrangement was possible, vi. 1, 2; 1 Cor. i. 80. 

e. An effort to keep unimportant words in the background, is 
manifest in Heb. iv. 11 ἵνα μὴ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τις ὑποδείγματι πέσῃ 
etc. v.4; 1 Ῥοί. ii 19; Acts xxvi. 24. So perhaps in 1 Cor. 
γ. 1 ὥςτε γυναῖκά τινα τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχειν (that the wife one has of his 


§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 551 


father), Luke xviii. 18. See Weber, Demosth. pp. 139, 261. Like- 
wise in Heb. ix. 16 ὅπου διαθήκη, θάνατον ἀνώγκη φέρεσθαι τοῦ 
διαθεμένου, the main thought θάνατον ἀνάγκη would have been 
weakened if the last word had been placed anywhere else. 
Occasionally in the more dexterous N. T. writers the awriwm 
judicium even, on which Cicero laid so much stress, may have 
exerted an influence, and produced a more flowing and rhythmical 
arrrangement. 


On the collocation of the same or similar words, as κακοὺς κακῶς ἀπολέ- 
σει, see ὃ 68, 1; ef. Kiihner II. 628. 

The antecedent position of the Predicate (e.g. in Jno. i. 1, 49 cf. vs. 
47; iv. 19, 24; vi. 60; Rom. xiii. 11; 2 Pet. i. 10, 14,19; Phil. ili. 20; 
ii. 11; 1 Jno. i. 10; Rey. ii. 9) is everywhere to be judged of according 
to the principles stated above. It is quite natural also, that, particularly 
in sentences having an exclamatory character, as well as in macarisms, the 
predicate should be placed at the beginning (the omission of the substan- 
tive verb being in such sentences the predominant usage), 6.5. Matt. xxi. 9 
εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου, xxiii. 39; Luke i. 42, 68; 2 Cor. 
i.3;1Cor.ii.11[?]; 1 Pet. i. 3; Matt. v. ὃ μακάριοι of πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι, 
4-11; xxiv. 46. So also regularly in forms of praise in the Ὁ. T. (4773, 
W720) Gen. ix. 26; 1 Sam. xxvi. 25; 2 Sam. xviii. 28; Ps. evi. 48, ete. 
But only an empirical expositor could regard this position as an unalter- 
able rule; for, when the subject constitutes the principal notion, especially 
when it is antithetical to another subject, the predicate may and must be 
placed after it, cf. Ps. lxvii. 20 Sept. And so in Rom. ix. 5, if the words 
6 ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητός ete. are referred to God, the position of the 
words is quite appropriate, and even indispensable,— which, with many 
others, Harless on Eph. i. 3 has failed to see. 

As to placing in particular the Genitive before the governing noun, see 
§ 30, 3, note 4, p.192. Careful writers avoid such arrangement if misap- 
prehension could arise from it. Hence in Heb. vi. 2 βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς is 
not instead of διδαχ. Barr., especially as in the other groups the position 
of the Genitive is in accordance with the rule. In the passages adduced 
by Tholuck from Thue. and Plut. ambiguity is impossible. 


4. Formerly, attention to the arrangement of words in the N. T. 
was restricted to those cases in which parts of sentences are found 
separated from those words with which they belong logically 
(1 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Pet. ii. 7; Rom. xi. 13; Heb. ii. 9), which 
was denominated Zrajection.! Such restriction was not so much 


1 See on such trajections in Greek, Abresch, Aristaenet. p. 218; Wolf, Demosth. 
Lept. p. 300 ; Reitz, Lucian. VII. 448 Bip. ; Kriiger, Dion. Hal. p. 139,318 ; Engelhardt, 
Euthyphr. p. 123 sq. 


513 
Τὰ οἱ, 
573 


487 
6th ed, 


552 § 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 


to be censured, as the almost entire neglect to inquire into the 
reasons which, in each particular case, gave occasion to the so 
called trajection. By such (rather instinctive) reasons the N. T. 
writers were invariably guided. Very seldom indeed have they 
transposed words, either when the nature of the ideas (Quintil. 
instit. 9, 4, 24) suggested the arrangement of the words (Matt. 
vii. 7; Jno. vii. 84; Rev. xxi. 6; xxii. 13; Matt. viii. 11; Heb. 
xiil. 8), or in phrases where according to the nature or importance 
of the ideas (sometimes not without regard to ease of ttterance) 
the order of words had been fixed conventionally. Thus: ἄνδρες 
καὶ γυναῖκες Acts viii. 3; ix. 2, γυναῖκες καὶ παιδία or τέκνα Matt. 
xiv. 21; xv. 88; Acts xxi. 5, ζῶντες κ. νεκροί Acts x. 42; 2 Tim. 
iv. 1; 1 Pet. iv. 5, νύκτα x. ἡμέραν Acts xx. 31; xxvi. 7, νυκτὸς x. 
ἡμέρας 1 Thess. ii. 9; iii. 10, σάρξ κ. αἷμα Matt. xvi.17; Gal.i.16; 
Jno. vi. 54, 56, ἐσθίειν (τρώγειν) κ. πίνειν Matt. xi. 18; Luke 
vii. 84; xii. 45; 1 Cor. xi. 22, 29, βρῶσις x. πόσις Rom. xiv. 17; 
574 Col. ii. 16, ἔργῳ «. λόγῳ Luke xxiv. 19 (Fr. Rom. III. 268), ὁ 
οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ Matt. v. 18; xi. 25; xxiv. 85; Acts iv. 24, ete. 
ὁ ἥλιος K. ἡ σέλήνη Luke xxi. 25; Rev. xxi. 28, ἡ γῆ «. ἡ θάλασσα 
|Acts iv. 24; xiv. 16 ; Rev. υἱῖ. 1, 8; xiv. 7, etc., right ... left Matt. 
A Ss 4 
514 xx. 21; xxv. 33; Mark x. 40; Luke xxiii. 33; 2 Cor. vi. 7; Rev. 
ithed. x. 2, δοῦλοι... ἐλεύθεροι 1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal. iii. 28; Eph. vi. 8, 
᾿Ιουδαῖοι x. Ελληνες Acts xviii. 4; xix. 10; Rom. iii. 9; 1 Cor. 
i. 24 (cf. Rom. ii. 9 f.) and the like. Deviations from this order 
occur but sparingly (cases, indeed, may be conceived in which the 
reverse order corresponds better with the truth, cf. Rom. xiv. 9; 
Heusinger, Plut. educ. 2,5); and if there is exclusive or predom- 
inant MS. authority for the opposite, it must be unhesitatingly 
adhered to, e.g. Eph. vi. 12 αἷμα κ. σάρξ, Heb. ii. 14; Matt. xxiii. 
15 ἡ θάλασσα x. ἡ ξηρά, Acts ix. 24 ἡμέρας κ. νυκτός Luke xviii. 7; 
Rom. xv. 18 λόγῳ x. ἔργῳ (Diod. 8. exc. Vat. p. 23), Col. iii. 11 
‘EX Any «. ᾿Ιουδαῖος. (Cod. D has in Matt. xiv. 21; xv. 38 [and in 
the latter passage Cod. Sin. also] παιδέα καὶ γυναῖκες, cf. Caes. Ὁ. 
gall. 2,28; 4,14.) In the N. T. the order οἱ πόδες καὶ ai χεῖρες 
seems to predominate, as in Matt. xxii. 13; Jno. xi. 44; xiii. 9; 
Acts xxi. 11. Only in Luke xxiv. 39 f. we find the opposite tas 
χεῖράς μου καὶ τοὺς πόδας (perhaps with reference to the fact that 
only the hands of persons crucified were pierced, and were there- 
fore considered principal parts, just as Jno. mentions only the 
hands). In Rom. xiv. 9 the order νεκροὶ καὶ ζῶντες is determined 
by the preceding ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἔζησεν. 


ee 


§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 553 


The arrangement of words in the N.T. is more unrestrained, 
when a series of ideas is framed. For then general and special 
conceptions etc. are not grouped together, but the words follow 
one another according to some loose association of ideas, or even 488 
a resemblance in sound, Rom. i. 29, 81; Col. iii. 5. See, in gen- * οὶ, 
eral, Lob. paralip. p. 62 sqq. 

It is necessary to be cautious in applying to such abnormal arrangements 
the name of hysteron proteron (cf. Odyss. 12, 184 τὰς μὲν dpa θρέψασα 
τεκοῦσά τε, Thuc. 8, 66; Nitzsch on the Odyss. I. 251 ἢ). We remark in 
passing, that on Jno. i. 52 ἀγγέλους θεοῦ ἀναβαίνοντας καὶ καταβαΐί- 
vovtas Liicke has stated the right view of the matter; and that vi. 69 
πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν (cf. x. 88) must not on account of 1 Jno. iv. 16 
ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιστεύκαμεν (Jno. xvii. 8) be considered as an inversion of 
thought, see BCrus. in loc. Likewise, in other passages of the N. T. it 
would be a mistake to suppose there is a hysteron proteron: In 1 Tim. 

ii. 4 πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν the 

- comprehensive ultimate end is first mentioned, and then the immediate (as 

the means of attaining the former), — (καί and therefore). In Acts xiv. 10, 
however, ἥλατο καὶ περιεπάτει is quite as possible as a matter of fact, as in 575 
iii. 8 περιπατῶν καὶ ἁλλόμενος. In 2 Pet. i. 9 μυωπάζων is subjoined as a 
more exact definition. The hysteron proteron which Bornem. Acts xvi. 18 

has adopted from Cod. D, rests on too little authority. Further, see 
Wilke, Rhetor. 226. 

5. f. Sometimes, however, single words were misplaced through 
inadvertency, or still more, because the ancients, expecting none 
but intelligent readers, were released from the necessity of minute « 
accuracy. Such irregularity occurred not unfrequently in prose 
writers in the use of certain adverbs (Stallb. Plat. Phaed. p. 123), 
to which, from the sense, every reader could at once assign the 545 
proper position, even though the author’s arrangement might not be ith ed 
the most logical. This applies to ἀεί in Isocr. Paneg. 14 διετέλεσαν 
κοινὴν τὴν πόλιν παρέχοντες Kal τοῖς ἀδικουμένοις ἀεὶ τῶν Ελλήνων 
ἐπαμύνουσαν, Xen. Oec. 19,19; Thue. 2, 48, etc. (see Kriiger, Dion. 

Ρ. 252; Schaef. Demosth. II. 234) ; also to πολλάκις Stallb. Plat. 
rep. 1. 93; to ἔτε Rom. v.6 ἔτε Χριστὸς ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν 
(instead of ἔτι ὄντ. ἡμ. ἀσθ.) cf. vs. 8 ; Plato, rep. 3, 868 ἃ. ; Achill. 
Tat. 5, 18 and Ῥορρο, Thue. I. I. 800 5αᾳ. ; lastly, to ὅμως 1 Cor. 
xiv. T ὅμως τὰ ἄψυχα φωνὴν διδόντα... ἐὰν διαστολὴν τοῖς 
φθόγγοις μὴ δῷ, πῶς γνωσθήσεται τὸ αὐλούμενον etc. instead of τὰ 
ἄψυχα, (καίπερ) φων. διδ., ὅμως, ἐὰν μή etc., and Gal. iii. 15 ὅμως 
ἀνθρώπου κεκυρωμένην διαθήκην οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ instead of dy. οὐδεὶς 
ἀθετεῖ (see Bengel, and my Comment. in loc.), cf. Plato, Phaed. 
70 


δδά 861. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 


91 ο. φοβεῖται μὴ ἡ ψυχὴ ὅμως καὶ θειότερον καὶ κάλλιον ὃν τοῦ 
σώματος προαποδλύηται; see Hm. and Lob. Soph. Α1. 16; Doederlein, 
Soph. Oed. C. p. 396; Pflugk, Eurip. Androm. p. 10 and Hel. p. 76.1 
489 Likewise the transposition of a negative is not altogether rare 
6th ed. in Greek authors (especially the poets, see Hm. Eurip. Hee. vs. 12). 
Then, however, there is either a suppressed antithesis, e.g. Plat. 
Crit. 47 d. πειθόμενοι μὴ τῇ τῶν ἐπαϊόντων δόξῃ, legg. 12, 948 a. ; 
Xen. M. 8,9, 6; ef. Kiihner 11. 628 ;? or the negative, instead of 
576 being joined to the word denied, is prefixed to the whole sentence, 
as in Plato, Apol. 35d. ἃ μήτε ἡγοῦμαι Kara εἶναι μήτε δίκαια, 
Xen. Eph. 3,8 ὅτε μὴ τὸ φάρμακον θανάσιμον ἣν ; 50 also in Acts 
vii. 48 ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὁ ὕψιστος ἐν “χειροποιήτοις κατοικεῖ. Further, 
many expositors® think they find a misplaced negative also in 
Rom. iii. 9 τί οὖν ; προεχόμεθα ; οὐ πάντως, 1.6. by no means 
516 (πάντως οὔ 1 Cor. xvi. 12). This interpretation is unavoidable, 
ΤῺ εἰ, whether we translate προεχόμεθα have we an advantage ? or have 
we a pretext? The linguistic admissibility of this signification is 
proved from Theogn. 305 (250f.)* and Epiphan. haer. 58, 6, as 
well as by analogies such as οὐδὲν πάντως Herod. 5, 34, 65 ;*® only 
a transposition, strictly speaking, is not to be thought of. The 
phrase is rather to be understood thus: no, asswredly ; no, by no 
means ; and the difference between οὐ πάντως when it meant not 


1 We must not, however, with Fr. Mr. p. 19, refer to this head εὐθέως (εὐθύς). In 

Mark ii. 8 ; v. 30 it belongs to the participle beside which it stands. Elsewhere, Mark 

, i. 10; ix. 15, it is put at the beginning of the sentence (see above in the text), and is 
easily to be construed with the principal verb. Also πάλιν in 2 Cor. xii. 21 is not 
transposed, but made to precede the whole sentence :- lest again, when I come, God 
humble me. So, probably, also σχεδόν in Heb. ix. 22 (as if, and almost) applies to the 
sentence : all things are purged with blood. Cf. Galen. protrept. c. 1 τὰ μὲν ἄλλα ζῶα 
σχεδὸν ἄτεχνα πάντ᾽ ἐστί. Aristot. polit. 2, 8; Lys. ed. Auger I. p. 204. 

2 What Valckenaer, schol. N. T. II. 574, has adduced, is not all well selected. As to 
other passages, in which even recent scholars assert erroneously the existence of a 
trajection of the negation (e.g. Thue. 1, 5; 3, 57), see Sintenis, Plut. Themist. p. 2. 

8 T do not understand on what grounds some of these expositors assert that Grotius’s 
rendering: not in all points, is unwarranted. As little do I understand how od πάντως 
omnino non is called a Hebraism. 55 &> too in immediate connection means non omnis s 
οὐ πᾶς for οὐδείς is always so separated that the verb is negatived by the od, see § 26, 1. 
>52 X>, however, with the omission of the verb, which Koppe quotes in loc., I do not 
remember to have found in the O. T. 

4 Οἱ κακοὶ οὐ πάντως κακοὶ ἐκ γαστρὸς γεγόνασιν, 

ἀλλ᾽ ἄνδρεσσι κακοῖς συνθέμενοι φιλίην. 

5 But οὐ πάνυ (μὴ πάνυ) means everywhere, not particularly. It is sometimes mild as 
to the expression, but strong as to the sense, a sort of litotes, see Weber, Demosth. 
p- 340; Franke, Demosth. p. 62. In Rom., as above, the context and tone of the pas- 
sage prevent us from rendering οὐ πάντως in the same way, by a species of Litotes 
(earnest or ironical), not entirely. 


§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 555 


entirely and when it denoted entirely not, was probably indicated 

by the mode of utterance. Hence it was without reason that 
van Hengel despaired of giving a satisfactory exposition of the 
passage, and concluded that there must be an unnoted corruption 

of the text. On the other hand, in 1 Cor. v. 9 f. ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ... 

μὴ συναναμέίγνυσθαι πόρνοις, οὐ πάντως τοῖς πόρνοις τοῦ κόσμου 
τούτου, the expression οὐ πάντως signifies non omnino (Sext. Emp. 
Mathem. 11, 18), and the last words are a corrective explanation 

of μὴ συναναμ. πόρνοις : to have no intercourse with fornicators, 
not absolutely with the fornicators of this world, for then must ye 
needs go out of the world (but, strictly, with impure members of 

the church). So Luther. Likewise Heb. xi. 3 εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐκ φαινο- 
μένων τὰ βλεπόμενα γεγονέναι is erroneously supposed to contain 

a transposed negation. It is, however, correctly rendered by 
Schulz: so that things which may be seen have not come of 400 
things visible ; cf. also Bengel in loc. That which is denied is, Sth od 
ἐκ φαινομένων τὰ βλεπόμενα γεγονέναι, and to this sentence the 577 
negative is prefixed quite according to rule. The instance to 
which appeal is made of a transposition of a negation in 2 Macc. 

vii. 28 ὅτε οὐκ ἐξ ὄντων ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ ὁ θεός is uncertain, as only 
Cod. Alex. has that reading. Tdf. has printed ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων. Lastly, 

2 Cor. iii. 4 f. πεποίθησιν... ἔχομεν, οὐχ ὅτι ἱκανοί ἐσμεν etc. must 

not be explained thus: ὅτι οὐχ (μή) ete. Rather is it to be ren- 
dered: this confidence have we ...; not (referring to 2 Cor. i. 24) 
that we are sufficient through ourselves, but our sufficiency is from 
God. In 2 Cor. xiii. 7 Paul states the aim of εὐχόμεθα... μηδέν 

in the words οὐχ ἵνα ἡμεῖς δόκιμοι φανῶμεν, first negatively: not 
that I (if ye abstain from evil) may appear approved (as your 
teacher). In 1 Jno. iv. 10 the propriety of the arrangement οὐχ 

ὅτι is obvious. In Rom. iv. 12 the negation is not misplaced, but 

the singularity consists in the repetition of the article before στου- 
χοῦσιν ;—a negligence of style which Fr. has tried to conceal by 

an artificial exposition, but which Philippi freely admits. In 517 
regard to 1 Cor, xv. 51 πάντες (μὲν) οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ th ol 
ἀλλαγησόμεθα, even after the remarks of Fr. de conformatione text. 
Lachm. p. 88 sq. and of van Hengel Cor. p. 216 sqq., I can only 
agree with Mey. That is to say, vs. 52 shows that ἀλλάττεσθαι 

is not applied in the wider sense (to the risen also), but in the 
narrower, as opposed to ἐγείρεσθαι. The passage can only be 
rendered : we shall all (the generation whom Paul addressed) — 
not fall asleep, — but all be changed. Had Paul supposed that 


556 § 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 


some of the πάντες might die, they would then belong to the νεκροῖς, 
vs. 52, and ἡμεῖς would be an inexact antithesis. Any doubt 
respecting Paul’s having been able to foretell a thing of this sort 
cannot induce me to assign to ἀλλάττ. in vs. 51 a signification 
different from what it has in vs. 52. Mey. has answered all other 
objections. That in Rom. xiii. 14 τῆς σαρκὸς πρόνοιαν μὴ ποιεῖσθε 
εἰς ἐπιθυμίας is not put for μὴ εἰς ἐπιθ. is doubtless on any sup- 
position clear, see Fr. in loc. Translators, including Luther, have 
taken the liberty to make a transposition in 2 Cor. xii. 20; but 
the arrangement in Greek is perfectly regular. 


In Rom. xv. 20 οὐχ ὅπου according to Bengel is used instead of ὅπου οὐκ 
for greater force, and according to BCrus. it is a milder, more modest, 
form of expression ; whereas it is simply the only correct expression : οὕτως, 

578 οὐχ ὅπου ... ἀλλά etc. In Rom. viii. 12 οὐ τῇ σαρκί suggests without help 
the antithesis ἀλλὰ τῷ πνεύματι. To the (appropriate) variation in the 
position of the negative in Rom. ii. 14 ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα and νόμον 
μὴ ἔχοντες Bengel had already directed attention, see also Mey. in loc. 

Some critics have thought that there is a hyperbaton in 2 Tim. ii. 6 
τὸν κοπιῶντα γεωργὸν δεῖ πρῶτον τῶν καρπῶν μεταλαμβάνειν. The Apostle 

491 according to vs. 5 appears to mean to say: the husbandman that first 

6th οὖν Jaboreth, must be partaker of the fruits, 1.6. the husbandman must first 
labor, before he be partaker of the fruits; so that πρῶτον belongs to κοπιᾶν, 
and the sentence should run accordingly, cf. Xen. C. 1, 8, 18 6 σὸς πρῶτος 
πατὴρ τεταγμένα ποιεῖ, 1.6. ὁ σὸς πατὴρ πρῶτος ter. 7. To get rid of the 
hyperbaton, Grotius makes πρῶτον signify demum, which is inadmissible. 
Later expositors, laying the emphasis on xoz. as purposely placed first, 
explain the passage thus: the laboring (not the idle) husbandman has the 
first right to partake of the fruits, see, especially, Wiesinger in loc. Similar 
and even more remarkable hyperbata are not unfrequent in Greek prose ; 
see Plat. rep. 7, 524a.; Xen. Cyr. 2, 1,5; cf. Bornem. Xen. Anab. p. 21 ; 
Franke, Demosth. p. 33. 

In Greek authors one or more words of a relative sentence are some- 
times put before the relative (Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 109), for the sake of 
emphasis, see above, no. 3. Several expositors have attributed this idiom 
to Acts i. 2,and punctuated the passage thus: τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, διὰ πνεύματος 
ἁγίου ods ἐξελέξατο ; but with little probability, as évreAA. διὰ πνεύμ. dy. was 
here (in reference to the sequel of the Acts) the only point of importance 
in Luke’s mind; while ἐκλέγ. διὰ τοῦ πν. fell within the range of the pre- 

518 vious history of the Gospel, and did not need to be stated here for the 
{ον first time. The general reference contained in ods ἐξελέξ., by which 
primarily the apostles are indicated, is not superfluous, as it was by that 
previous election that they had been prepared to receive the directions 
διὰ τοῦ πν.; see Valcken. in loc. There would be more ground for such 


§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 557 


punctuation in Acts v. 35 προςέχετε ἑαυτοῖς, ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις τί 
μέλλετε πράσσειν (see Bornem. in loc.), although the usual mode of con- 
necting the words gives a suitable meaning: take heed to yurselves in 
regard to these men, what ye intend to do. 

On the other hand, it is inconceivable that Luke could hath written in 
Acts xxvii. 39 κόλπον τινὰ κατενόουν ἔχοντα αἰγιαλόν for aiy. ἔχοντα κόλπον 
τινά. Grotius long ago remarked: non frustra hoc additur, sunt enim 
sinus quidam maris, qui litus non habent, sed praeruptis rupibus cinguntur ; 
see also Bengel. Moreover, aiy. ἔχοντα must be regarded as directly 
joined to the relative clause εἰς ὅν etc.: which had a beach, on which they 
. determined to land, i.e. a beach of such a description as may have induced 
them to attempt a landing. It would be equally harsh to construe, as 
some do, Rom. vii. 21 εὑρίσκω dpa τὸν νόμον τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοὶ ποιεῖν τὸ καλὸν 
ὅτι ἐμοὶ τὸ κακὸν παράκειται thus: τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοὶ τὸν νόμον ποιεῖν, τὸ καλόν. δ19 
It has always appeared to me most natural to take the words thus: εὗρ. 
ἄρα τὸν νόμον, TO θέλ. ... ὅτι ἐμοὶ τὸ κακὸν παράκειται invenio hanc legem 
(normam) volenti mihi honestum facere, ut mihi etc. See also Philippi 
in loc. 

Many also find a trajection, sanctioned by long usage and even affecting 
the case (Mtth. 867), in Jno. xii. 1 πρὸ ἐξ ἡμερῶν τοῦ πάσχα six days before 
the Passover, and xi. 18 ἦν ἡ Βηθανία ἐγγὺς τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων ὡς ἀπὸ σταδίων 
δεκαπέντε about fifteen furlongs off, cf. xxi. 8; Rev. χὶν. 20. That is, it is 
thought that if the prepositions stood in the right place the language 
would run ἐξ ἡμέραις πρὸ τοῦ 7., and ὡς σταδίους dex. ἀπὸ Ἵεροσ. (Luke 492 
xxiv. 18). But probably in local specifications Greek phraseology pro- δ ed 
ceded from a different view of the matter, ἀπὸ σταδίων dex. (properly: 
situated at a distance of fifteen furlongs i.e. where the fifteen furlongs 
terminated, at the end of fifteen furlongs), as in Latin e.g. Liv. 24, 46 
Fabius cum a quingentis fere passibus castra posuisset ; Ramshorn S. 273.1 
If now it were necessary to specify besides the speaker’s position, it was 
added to the phrase in the Genitive. The same applies to specifications 
of time. As it was usual to say πρὸ ἕξ ἡμερῶν vor sechs Tagen, before 
(the last past) 85; days, the form of expression was retained when it was 
necessary to indicate the point of time from which the period in question 
was counted, as πρὸ ἐξ ἡμερῶν τοῦ πάσχα (cf. Evang. apocr. p. 436 f.). 
But whatever explanation we may give of the construction, both these 
forms of expression (the temporal and the local) were of frequent occur- 
rence in later Greek, cf. Ael. anim. 11,19 πρὸ πέντε ἡμερῶν τοῦ ἀφανισθῆναι 
τὴν Ἑλίκην, Xen. Eph. 3, 3; Lucian. Cronos 14 ; Geopon. 12, 31,2; Achill. 
Tat. 7, 14 (and Jacobs in loc.) ; Epiphan. Opp. I. 248 a. ; Strabo 10, 483; 

15, 715 καταλαβεῖν ἄνδρας πεντεκαίδεκα ἀπὸ σταδίων εἴκοσι τῆς πόλεως, 519 
Plutarch. Philop. 4 ἦν ἀγρὸς αὐτῷ καλὸς ἀπὸ σταδίων εἴκοσι τῆς πόλεως, Diod. Τὰ ed. 


1 Polyaen. 2, 35 τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐκέλευσεν ἀπὸ βραχέος διαστήματος ἕπεσθαι is 
also illustrative. 


558 § 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 


S. 2,7; Acta apocr. p. 39, 61; see Reiske, Const. Porphyrog. IT. 20 ed. 
Bonn; Schaef. Long. p. 129. Kiihnél directs attention to the following 
passages of®the Sept.: Amos i. 1 πρὸ δύο ἐτῶν τοῦ σεισμοῦ, iv. 7 πρὸ τριῶν 
μηνῶν τοῦ τρυγητοῦ, with Sing. πρὸ μιᾶς ἡμέρας τῆς Μαρδοχαϊκῆς ἡμέρας, 
2 Mace. xv. 36 (Joseph. antt. 15, 11,4; Plut. symp. 8,1,1). Such phrases 
(in a temporal sense) are also composed with perd, as in Plut. Coriol. 11 
μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας ὀλίγας τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς τελευτῆς, Malal. 4, p. 88 μετὰ νβ΄ ἔτη τοῦ 
τελευτῆσαι τὴν Πασιφάην, Anon. chron. (before Malal. ed. Bonn.) p. 10 
μετὰ δύο ἔτη τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ, see Schaef. ad Bos, ellips. p. 553 sq. 


6. The position of certain particles and enclitic pronouns is 

580 fixed with greater or less precision in Greek, according to their 
importance in the sentence. For instance, μέν (μενοῦνγε, μέντοι), 
οὖν, δέ, γάρ, γε, τοίνυν, dpa, ought not to begin a sentence (ἄρα 
also ought not to begin an apodosis, Xen. C. 1, 3,2; 8, 4,7). 
With regard to most of these this rule is observed likewise in the 
N.T.;1 and δέ, γάρ, οὖν, have sometimes the 2d, sometimes the 

3d, sometimes even the 4th place (though the Codd. do not every- 
where agree). They occupy the 3d or 4th place, particularly, 
when it is necessary to avoid separating words that are intimately 
connected [especially prepositional phrases], as in Gal. iii. 23 πρὸ 

τοῦ δὲ ἐλθεῖν, [Heb. i. 18 πρὸς τίνα δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων], Mark i. 38 

εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἐξελήλυθα, Luke vi. 23; xv. 17; 2 Οον. 1. 19 ὁ τοῦ 
498 θεοῦ γὰρ vids, Acts xxvii. 14 μετ᾽ οὐ πολὺ δὲ ἔβαλε etc., Jno. viii. 16 
διὰ οὐ, καὶ ἐὰν κρίνω δὲ ἐγώ, 1 Jno. ii. 2 οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον, 
1 Cor. viii. 4 περὶ τῆς βρώσεως οὖν τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων, 2 Cor. x. 1 

ὃς κατὰ πρόςωπον μὲν ταπεινός, Jno. xvi. 22; Acts iii. 21, Cf. on 

δέ (Her. 8, 68; Aelian. anim. 7, 27; Xen. M. 2, 1,16; 5, 4,13; 
Diod. 5. 11,11; Thue. 1,6, 70; Arrian. Al. 2,2,2; Xen. eq. 11,8; 
Lucian. eunuch. 4; dial. mort. 5,1; Sext. Emp. math. 7, 65; 
Strabo 17, 808) Hm. Orph. p. 820; Boisson. Aristaenet. p. 687 ; 
Poppo, Thue. I. I. 802; III. I. 71; Stallb. Phileb. p. 90; Franke, 
Demosth. p. 208; on yap Schaef. melet. crit. p. 76; V. Fritzsche, 
quaest. Lucian. p. 100; on μέν Hm. Orph. as above, Bornem. 
Xenoph. conv. p. 61; Weber, Demosth. 402. On the other hand, 
dpa (see Hm. Soph. Antig. 628) is frequently, contrary to Greek 
usage, placed first, as in Luke xi. 48; Rom. x. 17; 2 Cor. v. 15; 
Gal. ii. 21; v. 11 etc.; so also ἄρα ody in Rom. v. 18; vii. 3; 
2'Thess. ii. 15; Eph. ii. 19, ete. Likewise wevodvye begins a period 


1”E@n, inserted in the direct discourse of a third party, occurs only in Acts xxiii. 35 ; 
but φησί in Matt. xiv. 8; Acts xxv. 5,22; xxvi. 25, etc. Usually we find in the N. T. 
ὁ Παῦλος ἔφη, ὁ δὲ ἔφη, before the oratio recta, which in Greek authors is the more rare 
usage, Madv. S. 260. . 


-§61, POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 559 


in Luke xi. 28; Rom. ix. 20; x. 18; see Lob. Phryn. p. 842; so 


also τοίνυν in Heb. xiii. 13. The latter very seldom begins a 520 
sentence in the better authors; for instances in later writers, see ™ 4 


Lob. Phryn. 1.6. They are especially frequent in Sext. Emp., as 
in Math. 1, 11, 14, 25, 140, 152, 155, 217, ete. Among the By- 
zantines, cf. Cinnam. p. 125, 186, ed. Bonn.’ 


Whether the indefinite τὶς can stand as the first word of a clause has 


been doubted, Mtth. Eurip. suppl. 1187 and Sprachl. 1081. Though from 


the nature of the case it may rarely begin a sentence, yet approved critics 
have with high probability established its claim to the first place in Soph. 
Trach. 865, and Oed. R. 1471 (cf. vs. 1475), Aeschyl. Choeph. 640 (Hm.). 
In prose cf. Plat. Theaet. 147 ο. ; Plut. trang. ὁ. 13. In the N.T. τὶς 
beginning a sentence is established in Matt. xxvii. 47; Luke vi. 2; Jno. 
xiii. 29; 1 Tim. v. 24; Phil. i. 15. 

᾿Αλλά ye yet at least are, in the more ancient authors, always separated 
by a word (though it be but a particle), Klotz, Devar. p.15sq. This rule 
is not observed in Luke xxiv. 21 ἀλλά ye σὺν πᾶσι τούτοις τρίτην ταύτην 
ἡμέραν ἄγει, see Bornem. in loc. 

Moreover, μέν is regularly placed after the word to which according to 
the sense it belongs.” There are, however, some exceptions to this rule: 
Acts xxii. 3 ἐγὼ μέν εἰμι ἀνὴρ “lovdaios, γεγεννημένος ἐν Ταρσῷ τῆς Κιλικίας, 
ἀνατεθραμμένος δὲ ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ (for ἐγώ ε. ἀ. Ἶ. γεγενν. μέν etc.), Tit. 
1.15 πάντα μὲν καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς, τοῖς δὲ μεμιασμένοις καὶ ἀπίστοις οὐδὲν 


581 


καθαρόν for τοῖς μὲν καθαρ. πάντα καθ. etc. or πάντα μὲν καθ. ... οὐδὲν δὲ 494 


καθ: τ. pu, 1 Cor. ἢ. 15. Cf. Xen. M. 2,1, 6; 8, 9, 8; Ael. anim. 2, 31; δὲ οἱ, 


Diog. L. 6, 60, see Hm. Soph. Oed. R. 486; Hartung, Partik. II. 415 ἢ 
Yet good Codd. have omitted μέν in the above three passages of the N. T. 
[ Cod. Sin. also in the first two; yet in the sgcond, corrector C has added 
μέν]; and recent editors have accepted their authority. Might it not have 
been expunged because it was displeasing ? 

The proper position of τε is after the word which stands parallel to 
another, as in Acts xiv. 1 Ἰουδαίων re καὶ Ἑλλήνων πολὺ πλῆθος, ix. 2 ; 
xx. 21; xxvi. 3. It is, however, not unfrequently inserted with more 
license, as in Acts xxvi. 22 (Elmsley, Eurip. Heracl. 622, yet cf. Schoem. 
Isae. p. 825) ; and, in particular, it stands immediately after a preposition 
or article, as in Acts x. 39; ii. 88 ; xxviii. 23; Jno. ii. 15, ete., in which 


1 But μέντοι always stands after some other word that commences the sentence. It 
is otherwise in later writers, see Boissonade, Anecd. II. 27. 

2 When several words have a grammatical connection, as article and noun, preposi- 
tion and noun, μέν may be placed immediately after the first, eg. Luke x.2 ὁ μὲν 
θερισμός, Heb. xii. 11 πρὸς μὲν τὸ παρόν, Acts i. 1 ; viii. 4 etc. (Demosth. Lacrit. 595 a.). 
So also μὲν οὖν in Lysias pecun. publ. 3 ἐν μὲν οὖν τῷ πολέμῳ. Cf. Bornem. Xen. conv. 
p- 61. ‘This holds also of other conjunctions, see above, p. 363. Also the names of 
a single person are separated by such conjunctions, Jno. xviii. 10 Σίμων οὖν Πέτρος. 


560 861. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 


case it sometimes emphasizes them as belonging to the two parallel mem: 
bers alike, as in Acts xxv. 23 σύν τε χιλιάρχοις καὶ ἀνδράσιν, xiv. 5; x. 39; 
cf. Plat. lege. 7, 796 ἃ. εἴς τε πολιτείαν καὶ ἰδίους οἴκους, Thuc, 4, 13 and 
the examples collected by Elmsley as above (also Joseph. antt. 17, 6, 2) 

521 and Ellendt, lexic. Soph. 11. 796. See, in general, Sommer in Jahn’s 

ith ed. Archiv I. 401 ff. In the same way ye is placed after an article or mono- 
syllabic particle in Rom. viii. 82; 2 Cor. νυ. 3; Eph. iii. 2, cf. Xen. M. 1, 
2,27; 3,12,7; 4, 2,22; Diod. 5. ὅ, 40; see Matthiae, Eurip. Tphig: Aul. 
498 ; Ellendt, as above, I. 344. 

582 Many expositors, e.g. Schott, find a trajection of the καί (even) in Heb. 
vil. 4 ᾧ καὶ δεκάτην ᾿Αβραὰμ ἔδωκεν, for ᾧ δεκάτην καὶ ᾿Αβρ. &. But the 
emphasis in this passage lies in the giving of a tenth, and Schulz has 
correctly translated it. 


7. Violent transpositions of clawses1 have been thought to occur 

a. Acts xxiv. 22, where Beza, Grotius, and others, in explaining 
the words ὁ Φῆλιξ, ἀκριβέστερον εἰδὼς τὰ περὶ τῆς ὁδοῦ, εἴπας, ὅταν 
Avoias καταβῇ, διωγνώσομαι etc., include εἰδώς in the clause εἴπας 
etc. and render thus: Felix, quando accwratius ... cognovero, 
inquit, et Lysias huc venerit etc. But the arrangement here is 
quite regular, as later expositors have perceived. Cf. Bornem. in 
Rosenm. Repert. 11. 281 f. 

b. 2 Cor. viii. 10 οἵτινες οὐ μόνον τὸ ποιῆσαι ἀλλὰ Kai TO θέλειν 
προενήρξασθε ἀπὸ πέρυσι, where an inversion has been assumed : 
non velle solum sed facere incepistis (Grotius, Schott, Stolz, and 
others),? on account of vs. 11 ἡ προθυμία τοῦ θέλειν. This is 
wrong. The willing strictly indicates merely the decision (to col- 
lect), and if προενήρξασθς͵ is spoken comparatively, that is with a 
reference to the Macedonian Christians, may be put before ποιῆσαι, 
as expressing a point of more importance: Not only in execution, 
but even in intention, ye were before the Macedonians. So much 

495 the more fitting is it now, that the collection be quite completed.? 
tthe. Tt might have been quite possible for the Corinthians to have been 
first prompted by the decision of the Macedonians to a similar 
decision. Mey. in loc. (1st ed.) subtilizes and finally arrives at the 


1 On this subject see W. Kahler, satura duplex de veris et fictis textus sacri trajec- 
tionib. ex Evangg. et Actis Apost. collect. Lemgov. 1728. 4to., and /. Wassenbergh, de 
transposit. salub. in sanandis vett. scriptor. remedio. Franecq. 1786. 4to. (also reprinted 
in Seebode’s Miscell. Crit. I. 141 sqq.). 


2Syrinc pote cof fi] γον δ fo sas oS Olape 


8 T cannot admit that in this sense vs. 11 must have run, a ἐπιτελέσατε τὸ ποιῆσαι : 
the θέλειν, was, of course, completed long ago, but it is necessary to complete the 
ποιῆσαι also. 


§ 62. INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE ; PARENTHESES. 561 


exposition propounded by Fritzsche (diss. in Cor. II. 9), which de 
Wette ably combats. This last critic has recently reproduced the 
above explanation [which Mey. also has adopted in his 2d, 3d, and 

4th eds.], and I recall the view that I formerly upheld. ΑΒ to Jno. 

xi. 15, see above, ὃ 53, 10, 6, p. 459. (In Mark xii. 12 there is 
nothing whatever of the nature of a trajection. To the double 
clause is annexed, after its conclusion, the ground of the first 
member, and then in καὶ ἀφέντες etc. the result is expressed. 522 
Similar is Mark xvi. 3. In Phil. i. 16 f. the two clauses should, ™M ed 
on the best testimony [Sin. also], be thus arranged: οἱ μὲν ἐξ 
ἀγάπης ... οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας, thus in converse relation to vs. 15 ; 583 
this can perplex no reader.) 


When, in the arrangement of individual clauses, the dependent are placed 
before the principal, e.g. telic clauses, as in Matt. xvii. 27; Acts xxiv. 4; 
Jno. i. 31; xix. 28,31; 2 Cor. xii. 7; Rom. ix. 11 (see Fr. Rom. II. 297), 
relative clauses, as in Mark xi. 23; Jno. iii. 11; Rom. viii. 29 ete., con- 
ditional clauses, as in 1 Cor. vi. 4; xiv. 9, the grounds of such arrangement 
are obvious to every attentive reader, cf. Kiihner II. 626. Here belongs, 
probably, also 1 Cor. xv. 2 τίνι λόγῳ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν εἰ κατέχετε ; see 
Mey. in loc. 


§62. INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES; PARENTHESES. 


1. Interrupted sentences are those whose grammatical flow is 
obstructed by the insertion of a clause complete in itself;1 as, 
Acts xiii. 8 ἀνθίστατο αὐτοῖς ᾿Ελύμας ὁ μάγος --- οὕτως yap μεθερ- 
μηνεύεται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ --- ζητῶν διαστρέψαι etc., Rom. i. 13 οὐ 
θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν ὅτι πολλάκις προεθέμην ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ---- καὶ 
ἐκωλύθην ἄχρι τοῦ δεῦρο --- ἵνα τινὰ καρπὸν σχῶ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν. The 
clause thus inserted is denominated a parenthesis,2 and is usually 
separated visibly from the rest of the period by the well-known 


parenthetical marks. According to the preceding definition the 496 
6th αἱ, 

1 The definition given in Ruddimann’s Instit. II. 396, ed. Stallb. is not amiss: paren- 
thesis est sententia sermoni, antequam absolvatur, interjecta. Wilke’s definition 
(Rhetor. S. 226) is too comprehensive. 

2 Ch. Wolle, comment. de parenthesi sacra. Lips. 1726. 4to.; J. F. Hirt, diss. de 
parenthesi et generatim et speciatim sacra. Jen. 1745. 4to.; A. B. Spitzner, comment. 
philol. de parenthesi libris V. et N. T. accommodata. L. 1773. 8vo.; J. G. Lindner, 
2comment. de parenthesibus Johanneis. Arnstad. 1765. 4to. (A work de parenthesibus 
Paullinis is a desideratum.) Cf. also Clerici ars crit. II. 144 sqq. Lips. ; Baumgarten, 
augfiihrl. Vortr. iiber die Hermeneutik 5. 217 ff.; Keil, Lehrbuch der Hermen. S. 58 f. 
(mostly incorrect). 

®'To throw away all external marks of a (true) parenthesis, and yet retain inter- 

71 


562 § 62. INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE; PARENTHESES. 


name of parentheses cannot be applied, in the first place, to inserted 
subordinate clauses, even though of considerable length, if they 
are connected in construction with the principal clause by a rela- 
tive or as Gen. absol. (Rom. xvi. 4; ix. 1; 1 Pet. ili. 6 ; 1 Cor. v. 4; 
584 Luke i. 70; ii. 23; Eph. vi. 2; Acts iv. 86), still less to clauses 
in apposition, such as Jno. xiv. 22; xv. 26; 1 Pet. iii. 21; 2Jno.1; 
Acts ix. 17; Mark vii. 2; 1 Cor. ix. 21, or to clauses annexed by 
way of explanation or reason to a concluded sentence, such as 
523 Jno. iv. 6, 8,10; xi. 2, 51f.; xiii. 11; xviii. 5; xix. 23; Mark 
Τὰ οἱ vii. 3 £26; Matt.i.22f.; Luke i.55; Acts 1. 15; viii. 16; Rom. 
vill. 86; 1 Cor. ii. 8; xv. 41; Gal. ii. 8; Eph. ii. 8; Heb. v. 18; 
viii. 5; vii. 11; Rev. xxi. 25, or lastly, to those with which the 
continuation of the discourse, beyond the alleged parenthesis, is 
grammatically connected, as 1 Cor. xvi. 5 ἐλεύσομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, 
ὅταν Μακεδονίαν διέλθω (Maxedoviav yap διέρχομαι), πρὸς ὑμᾶς δὲ 
τυχὸν παραμενῶ, Where, indeed, Maxed. and ὑμᾶς, διέρχ. and παραμ. 
stand obviously in mutual relation, Gal. iv. 24; Heb. iii. 4; Jno. 
xxi. 8; Rom. ix. 11; Mark v.13; vii. 26. Parentheses are in- 
troduced either asyndetically or by καί (Fr. Rom. 1. 35) δέ or γάρ 
Rom. i. 13; vii. 1; Eph. v. 9; Heb. vii. 11; Jno. [xvii. 10] 
xix. 81; 1 Tim. ii. 7; Acts xii. 3; xiii. 8; 1 Jno. i. 2, and after 
them the construction either proceeds regularly, or is resumed 
(sometimes with some alteration) by the repetition of a word from 
the principal clause, with or without a conjunction, as in 2 Cor. 
v. 8; 1Jno.i. 3. It does not, however, follow from the latter 
circumstance, that a series of words may be regarded as a paren- 
thesis, as Eph. i. 18 ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς, ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας, 
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς σωτηρίας ὑμῶν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ πιστεύσαντες ἐσφραγίσθητε 
etc. ii. 11 ff. ; 1 Cor. viii. 1 (see Mey.) ; 2 Cor. v. 6 ff. ; Jno. xxi. 21 ; 
so too, where the construction which had been commenced is not 
grammatically resumed, but the thread of discourse is continued 
in a new and independent form, the structure is not parenthetic, 
but anacoluthic (ὃ 63), e.g. Rom. v. 12 ff. 
' Ὁ, The number of parentheses in the N. T. is not small, but not 
so large as earlier expositors and editors (even Knapp) assumed. 
Besides the insertion of single words, which is common also in 
Greek and Latin authors (cf. nudius tertius), as in 2 Cor. viii. 3 
κατὰ δύναμιν, μαρτυρῶ, K. παρὰ δύναμιν αὐθαίρετοι, Heb. x. 29 πόσῳ, 


punction, would be inconsistent. But in by far the greatest number of cases, commas 
suffice for distinguishing inserted words. Round brackets seem to be most suitable as 
parenthetical marks. 


§ 62, INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE; PARENTHESES. 563 


δοκεῖτε, χείρονος ἀξιωθήσεται τιμωρίας.,1 2 Cor. x. 10 ai μὲν ἐπιστολαί, 
φησίν, βαρεῖαι (see above, ὃ 58, 9), xi. 21; Rom. iii. 5, there are 
in the historical books frequent explanations respecting place, 
time, occasion etc. expressed parenthetically, as in Acts xii. 3 585 
προςέθετο συλλαβεῖν καὶ Πέτροων----ῆἦσαν δὲ ἡμέραι τῶν ἀζύμων 
— ὅν οἴο.,1. 15; xiii.8; Luke ix. 28 ἐγένετο μετὰ τ. λόγους τούτους, 


mar. 1, 4),? Acts v. Τ ἐγένετο δέ, ὡς ὡρῶν τριῶν διάστημα, καὶ ἡ 
γυνή etc., Matt. xv. 82 (ef. Lucian. dial. mar. 1,4; Schaef. Demosth. 524 
V. 388); Luke xxiii. 51; Jno. iii. 1 ἣν ἄνθρωπος, Νικόδημος the 
ὄνομα αὐτῷ, ἄρχων τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων, xix. 31 (Diog. L. 8,42); Luke 
xiii. 24 πολλοί, λέγω ὑμῖν, ζητήσουσιν etc. Sometimes the nar- 
rator interrupts with such an explanation the direct discourse of 
another: Mark vii. 11 ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος" κορβᾶν, ὅ ἐστιν δῶρον, 

ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, Ino. i. 89 οἱ δὲ εἶπον αὐτῷ ῥαββί, ὃ 
λέγεται ἑρμηνευόμενον διδάσκαλε, ποῦ μένεις ;? Sometimes 

an exhortation is thrust in in the same way, as Matt. xxiv. 16 f. 
ὅταν ἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγμα ... ἑστὸς ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ, ὁ ἀναγινώσκων 
νοείτω, τότε οἱ ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ etc. 

8. There is no parenthesis in Jno. xi. 30; vs. 30 is so far con- 
nected with vs. 29 as it was necessary to mention the place to 
which Mary went; and after the narrator has completed the 
account of her going out, he passes in vs. 31 to her attendants 


1 Aristoph. Acharn. 12 πῶς τοῦτ᾽ ἔσεισέ μου, δοκεῖς, thy καρδίαν; Villois. anecd. II. 24 
πόσων, οἴεσθε, θυγατέρας ... ἐξέδωκεν ; 

2 The Greek idiom to which this has been compared by Kiihnél and others (the so 
called schema Pindaricum, see Fischer, Weller. III. 345 sq. ; Vig. p. 192 sq.; Hm. Soph. 
Trach. 517; Boeckh, Pindar. II. 11. 684 sq. ; J. V. Brigleb, diss. in loc. Lue. ix. 28, Jen. 
1739. 4to.) lies too remote, being almost exclusively poetic (Aiiner II. 50 f.), and its 
application is not favored by ἐγένετο, usually employed absolutely (nowhere ἐγένοντο 
ἡμέραι ὀκτώ etc.). Further, Matt. xv. 32 also is to be explained in the same way as 
Luke ix. 28 : ὅτι ἤδη ἡμέραι τρεῖς, προςμένουσί μοι according to the best Codd., where 
Fr., overlooking the loose manner in which such specifications of time are introduced, 
has printed (from D): ἤδη ἡμέραι τρεῖς εἰσι καὶ προςμέν. etc., which is a manifest cor- 
rection. On Mark viii. 2, however, he has admitted the correctness of the common 
text. See also his letter Ueber die Verdienste Tholuck’s S.17. Also Luke xiii. 16 ἣν 
ἔδησεν ὃ σατανᾶς, ἰδοὺ δέκα καὶ ὀκτὼ ἔτη etc. I have no hesitation in taking, with 
Bengel, in the same way. 

ὃ Different from this is the case in which the writer subjoins incidentally such an 
explanation to the words of another, and then proceeds in his own person, Jno. ix. 7 
ὕπαγε νίψαι εἰς τ. κολυμβήθραν τοῦ Σιλωάμ, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται ἀπεσταλμένος. ἀπῆλ- 
θεν οὖν etc., i, 42,44; Matt. i. 22f.; xxi.4f. In all these cases there is no trace of 
a parenthesis. Matt. ix. 6 is not so much a parenthesis as a blending of the oratio 
directa and indir. ; and in Heb. x. 8 the author introduces, indeed, his own words in 
the midst of the quotation, but he does this by means of a relative clause. 


564 8862. INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE; PARENTHESES. 


who went out also. In Jno. xix. 5 the narrative proceeds quite 
regularly, for the change of subject does not render a parenthesis 
necessary. In Matt. xvi. 26 also parenthetical marks appear to 
be unnecessary (though Schulz has retained them); for vs. 26 
586 adds to τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν ζημιωθῇ an illustration of the value of the 
ψυχή. In vs. 27 the reference is to vss. 25 and 26 inclusively ; 
no interruption of the construction can be perceived. In xxi. 4f 
a remark is added by the narrator; but in vs. 6 the simple nar- 
rative continues. Similar is Jno. vi. 6. In Jno. i. 14 probably 
the words καὶ ἐθεασάμ. ... πατρός were not regarded by the author 
as an insertion ; but, after the completion of the complex sentence, 
498 the summary πλήρης χάρ. x. ἀληθ. is added in grammatical inde- 
δὲὲ οἱ. pendence, somewhat as in Phil. iii. 19 or Mark xii. 40. Luke. 
vii. 29f. contain no parenthesis (Lchm.), but words of Christ, 
who previously, and again in vs. 31, is speaking. In Mark iii. 17 
the assumption of a parenthesis is not sufficient to explain the 
construction, but vss. 16-19 are expressed in oratio variata, see 
525 ὃ 63 Il. 1. There is no parenthesis in Jno. vi. 23; it is con- 
the nected with ὅτε in vs. 22. The proposal of Ziegler (in Gabler’s 
Journ. fiir theolog. Lit. 1. 155) to include in a parenthesis the 
words καὶ ἦσαν... γυναικῶν Acts v. 12 ff. has, very properly, found 
no favor with editors (except Schott); and those critics also who 
have suspected something spurious in vss. 12-15 (Eichhorn, Beck, 
Kiihn6l) have been too precipitate. The words ὥςτε κατὰ τὰς 
πλατείας ἐκφέρειν τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς etc. are very aptly connected with 
vs. 14; the two facts, that the people held the apostles in high 
estimation, and that the number of believers increased, readily 
explain why the sick were brought out into the streets. The 
words, indeed, connect themselves with vs. 14 far-more neatly than 
with vs. 12. Are we to understand by πολλὰ σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα 
(ἐν τῷ λαῷ) merely the preceding events, the effect of which 
was ὥςτε ἐκφέρειν etc. ? To assume this would be to sacrifice the 
perspicuity of the narrative. For what else could those πολλὰ 
σημεῖα have been but miracles of healing? Thus in the words 
ὥςτε κατά etc. what had been only briefly indicated in vs. 12 recurs 
in another connection to be narrated more in detail (vs. 15 f.). 
Accordingly, I cannot bring myself to make with Lchm. vs. 14 a 
parenthesis. On the other hand, in Acts x. 36 τὸν λόγον is probably 
to be connected with vs. 37, and the words οὗτος etc., which as 
a complete sentence express a leading thought that Peter could 
not well annex by a relative, form a parenthesis; and in vs. 37 


§62. INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE; PARENTHESES. 565 


the speaker, after this interruption, proceeds by an amplification 
of the thought. 

4. In the Epistles also parentheses, especially short ones, occur, 
which contain sometimes a limitation, 1 Cor. vii. 11, sometimes a 587 
corroboration, 1 Tim. ii. 7; 1 Thess. ii. 5, sometimes a reason or 
more precise explanation, Rom. vii. 1; 2 Cor. v. 7; vi. 2; x. 4; 

xii. 2; Gal. ii. 8; Eph. ii. 5; v.9; Jas. iv. 14; 2 Thess. i. 10; 

1 Jno. i. 2; 1 Tim. iii. 5, or any thought whatever that obtruded 
itself upon the writer (Col. iv. 10; Rom. i. 13). But we find in 

the Epistles some parentheses also of greater length, as in Heb. 

vii. 20 f. of μὲν γάρ... εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, since καθ᾽ ὅσον οὐ χωρὶς 
ὁρκωμοσίας vs. 20 is obviously connected with vs. 22 κατὰ τοσοῦτο 
κρείττονος ete.; and in Rom. ii. 18-15, since vs. 16 ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὅτε 
κρινεῖ etc. is after all most appropriately connected with κριθήσονται 

vs. 12, for κρινεῖ glances back at κριθήσονται. Vss. 13-15, however, 
constitute an independent group of thoughts, appended to vs. 12 

as explanatory: it is the doing, not the hearing, of the law which 

is required, vs. 13; but the righteous heathen even are doers of 499 
the law, vss. 14,15. But many lengthened insertions are not “ἢ 
parentheses but digressions, inasmuch as they check merely the 526 
progress of thought and not the sequence of construction. So in The 
1 Cor. viii. 1-3 Paul, after grammatically concluding the clause 
περὶ δὲ... ἔχομεν, allows himself, from ἡ γνῶσις to ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, to 
digress on γνῶσις in relation to ἀγάπη, and, resuming the thread 

of the discourse, returns in vs. 4 περὶ τῆς βρώσεως οὖν etc. to vs. 1. 
Similar digressions occur in 1 Cor. xv. 9,10 and 2 Cor. iii. 14-18 
(iv. 1 is connected with iii. 12). In Rom. xiii. 9 f. by καὶ τοῦτο 
εἰδότες Paul returns to μηδενὶ μηδὲν ὀφείλετε, which is to be men- 

. tally repeated. Finally, in most of the passages usually adduced 

as parentheses, there is neither parenthesis nor digression: In 
Tit. 1. 1 ff. κατὰ πίστιν is connected with ἀπόστολος, and the 
destination of Paul’s apostleship is fully brought out in the clause 

κ. πίστ. ... αἰωνίου, While to ζωῆς aiwv. is appended the relative 
clause ἥν as far as θεοῦ. Likewise in Rom. i. 1-7, where even 
Schott in his last edition assumes two parentheses, the whole 
passage flows with one unbroken thread, only the main conceptions 

in vss. 3 f. 5, 6 are amplified by relative clauses. So also in Col. 

iii, 12-14, where ἀνεχόμενοι (corresponding to ἐνδύσασθε) is a 
modal specification of μακροθυμίαν (perhaps also of πραότηταν, but 

is itself re-enforced by καθώς etc. Only οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς may appear 

to interrupt the structure, as the thought is already expressed 


588 


500 


6th ed. 


527 


Τὰ ed. 


566 § 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 


through καθώς in the connection of the preceding clause ; but if 
χαριζόμενοι be there supplied, the construction becomes regular. 
In Heb. xii. there is the less ground for regarding vss. 20, 21 as 
a parenthesis (Lchm.), since in vs. 22 προςεληλύθατε is repeated 
from vs. 18 ; so that a new senteuce begins, an affirmative opposed 
to the negative group of sentences vss. 18-21. In 1 Cor. i. 8 ὅς 
refers to Χριστός vs. 7, and vss. 5 and 6 contain no parenthesis. 
In Rom. xvi. 4 the two connected relative clauses occasion no real 
break in the structure and cannot be regarded as parenthetic. In 
1 Pet. iii. 6 ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι is connected with ἐγενήθητε, and the 
words ws... τέκνα are not parenthetic. In Eph. iii. 5 ὃ ἑτέραις 
etc. is joined to ἐν μυστηρίῳ τοῦ X. vs. 4; and in 2 Pet. i. 5 
(Schott) αὐτὸ τοῦτο δὲ on. πταρειςενέγκαντες stands parallel to ὡς 
πάντα ... δεδωρημένης etc., and vs. 4 is an explanatory relative 
clause to the words διὰ δόξης καὶ ἀρετῆς. On 1 Jno. iv. 17 ff. ; 
Eph. i. 21 hardly any remark is required. In Eph. ii. 11 of Ney... 
χείροπ. is an apposition to τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί, and the repetition of 
ὅτι in vs. 12 cannot convert what precedes into a parenthesis. 
Lastly, anacolutha occur in Col. iii. 16 ; 2 Pet. ii. 4-8 (in the lat- 
ter passage occasioned by vs. 8, see ὃ 63,1. 1 p.569) and 1 Tim. 1.8 ff. 


In Eph. iii. 1 ff. the Predicate is not 6 δέσμιος, for then, if the meaning 
were ego Paulus vinculis detineor, the article would be omitted; and the 
sense J am the prisoner of Christ (κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν), does not recommend itself. 
The simplest mode of explaining the passage is, after Theodoret, to rec- 
ognize in τούτου χάριν ys. 14 the resumption of the thought interrupted in 
vs. 1; especially as the intercession vs. 14 sqq. finds its appropriate occa- 
sion in the very fact that Paul had been by his imprisonment withdrawn 
from his personal labors, and τούτου χάριν also in vs. 1 receives its natural 
import. With far less probability others join iv. 1 to iii. 1, since there 
ὃ δέσμιος seems to refer to ἐγὼ ὃ δέσμιος. Cf. Cramer, translation of Eph. 
p- 71 ff., who quotes and tests other conjectures, and Harless. 


§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES; 
ANACOLUTHON, ORATIO VARIATA. 


I. 1. Anacoluthon! oceurs when the construction with which a 


1 Hm. Vig. 894 sqq. (who explains poetic anacolutha almost exclusively) ; Poppo, 
Thue. I. I. 360 sqq. ; Kéihner 11. 616 ff.; Mdv. 253 ff.; F. Richter, de praecip. grace. 
lingu. anacoluth. Miihlh. 1827 f. 2 spec. 410. ; v. Wannowski, Syntax. anomal. graec. 
pars cet. Lips. 1835. 8vo.; 1, W. Engelhardt, Anacoluth. Plat. spec. 1-3, Gedani 1834 ff. 
4to. (cf. Gernhard, Cic. offic. p. 441 sq. ; Matthiae, de anacoluth. ap. Ciceron. in Wolf, 
Analect. lit. III. 1 sqq.). For the N. T. Fritzsche, Conjectan. spec. 1 (Lips. 1825 8vo.) 


p- 38 sq. 


§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 567 


sentence began is not grammatically pursued ;— either because 589 
the writer is wholly diverted from the structure adopted at the 
beginning by something intervening (especially by parentheses, 
see Beier, Cic. off. Il. 365), or because for the sake of a preferable 
mode of expression (Weber, Demosth. 538) he frames the close of 
his sentence otherwise than the commencement required.1_ Hence 
anacolutha are sometimes involuntary, sometimes intentional. 
To the latter class belong also those which have a rhetorical ground 
(Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 221), or which originate, as Hm. Vig. 895 
expresses it, a motu animi vel ab arte oratoris vim aliquam captante. 
In writers of great mental vivacity and activity, more taken up 
with the thought than with the expression, anacolutha are most 
frequently to be expected. Hence they are especially numerous 
in the epistolary style of the Apostle Paul. We specially point 
out the following: Acts xv. 22 ἔδοξεν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ... 
ἐκλεξαμένους ἄνδρας ἐξ αὐτῶν πέμψαι... γράψαντες διὰ χειρὸς 
αὐτῶν (Lys. in Eratosth. 7 ἔδοξεν αὐτοῖς... ὥςπερ... WET οιη- 
κότες, Antiphon. p. 613 Reisk. ἔδοξεν αὐτῇ βουλομένῃ βέλτιον 
εἶναι μετὰ δεῖπνον δοῦναι, ταῖς Κλυταιμνήστρας τῆς τούτου μητρὸς 
ὑποθήκαις ἅμα διακονοῦσα, vice versa Plat. lege. 3, 686 ἃ. ἀπο- 
βλέψας πρὸς τοῦτον τὸν στόλον, οὗ πέρι διαλεγόμεθα, ἔδοξέ μοι 
πάγκαλος eivatc—as, in general, often with ἔδοξε ---, Plat. Apol. 501 
21 ο.; Xen. Cyr. 6,1, 31; Lucian. Astrol. 3; Schwarz, soloecism. p. afta 
86 sq.) 3? Acts xx. ὃ ποιήσας μῆνας τρεῖς, γενομένης αὐτῷ ἐπιβουλῆς wy oi, 
. +. μέλλοντι ἀνάγεσθαι εἰς THY Συρίαν, ἐγένετο γνώμη, etc. In 
Rom. xvi. 25-27 τῷ δυναμένῳ ... μόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χρ., 
ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, Paul is led away from the intended con- 
struction by his extended statement respecting God in vss. 25, 26, 
and, instead of immediately annexing ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, forms 
a relative clause out of the contents of the doxology, as if the Dative 
θεῷ concluded a sentence. Similar is Acts xxiv. 5, where ἐκρατή- 
σαμεν vs. 6 should without anything further have been added to 
the participle εὑρόντες τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον ; Luke, however, led astray 590 
by the relative clause ὃς καί etc. has made it, too, a part of the 
relative sentence: ὃν καὶ éxpar. More remarkable are the ana- 
colutha in periods of smaller extent: as in Acts xix. 34 ἐπυγνόντες, 


1 Accordingly, in 1 Jno. i. 1 ff. there is no anacoluthon, as vs. 3, by a grammatically 
regular repetition of the words of the first verse after the intermediate clause vs. 2, is 
connected strictly with the beginning of the sentence. 

2 In Latin cf. Hirt. bell. afric. 25 dum haec ita fierent, rer Juba, cognitis ..., non est 
visum, ete. Plin. ep. 10, 34. 

8 One of the most singular is perhaps that adduced by Kypke II. 104: Hippocr. morb 


568 § 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE 


ὅτι ᾿Ιουδαῖός ἐστι, φωνὴ ἐγένετο μία ἐκ πάντων (instead of ἐφώνησαν 
ἅπαντες), Mark ix. 90 ἰδὼν (6 παῖς) αὐτόν, τὸ πνεῦμα εὐθὺς ἐσπάραξεν 
αὐτόν (instead of ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος ἐσπαράχθην), to which Fr. 
compares Anthol. pal. 11, 488 (?) κἀγὼ δ᾽ αὐτὸν ἰδών, τὸ στόμα μου 
δέδεται, see also Plat. legg. 6, 109 6. Further, in Luke xi. 11 τίνα 
ἐξ ὑμῶν τὸν πατέρα αἰτήσει ὁ vids ἄρτον, μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ ; 
the question, will he give ? pre-supposes ἃ protasis: a father when 
asked for bread by his son, or, a father whom his son asks for bread 
(Matt. vii. 9). So too in Acts xxiii. 80 μηνυθείσης μοι ἐπιβουλῆς 
εἰς τὸν ἄνδρα μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι, where the construction should have 
continued μελλούσης ἔσεσθαι; whereas μέλλειν might have been 
employed, had the clause been introduced somehow, thus: μηνυ- 
σάντων ἐπιβουλήν, etc. Cf. ὃ 45,6. Probably the construction 
was intentionally altered in 1 Cor. xii. 28 ods μὲν ἔθετο ὁ θεὸς ἐν TH 
ἐκκλησίᾳ πρῶτον ἀποστόλους, δεύτερον προφήτας, τρίτον διδασκάλους 
etc., where Paul at first meant to write ods μὲν... ἀποστ.; ods δὲ 
προφ. etc. ; but instead of employing mere juxtaposition, he pre- 
ferred an arrangement according to rank, so that now ods μέν 
stands quite isolated, and the subsequent abstracts also, ἔπευτα 
δυνάμεις, are appended to the simple ἔθετο, which alone the writer 
still had in his mind. Likewise in Tit. i. 8 the Apostle, by the 
introduction of τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ in connection with ἐφανέρωσε δὲ 
etc., seizes on a more suitable turn of expression. Cf. besides 
2 Cor, vii. 5 (1 Cor. vii. 26). Still more incoherent are the com- 
posite parts of an anacoluthie period in Jno. vi. 22 τῇ ἐπαύριον ὁ 
byAos ... ἰδών, ὅτι... (ἄλλα δὲ ἦλθε πλοιάρια ...), ὅτε οὖν εἶδεν 


5296 ὄχλος οἵο., where εἶδεν in consequence of the words inserted 
th el. has acquired a more comprehensive object than belonged to ἰδών. 


In Gal. ii. 6 ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί tu — ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν, οὐδέν 


502 μοι διαφέρει ---- ἐμοὶ yap οἱ δοκοῦντες οὐδὲν προςανέθεντο, where the 
ithe. Apostle should have continued in the Passive, but is so disturbed 


by the parenthetic clause that he frames a new sentence with γάρ. 


vulg. 5, 1 ἐν ᾿Ηλίδι ἡ τοῦ κηπωροῦ γυνὴ πυρετὸς εἶχεν αὐτὴν ξυνεχὴς καὶ φάρμακα πίνουσα 
οὐδὲν ὠφελέετο. Cf. also Bar. 1, 9 μετὰ τὸ ἀποικίσαι Ναβουχοδονόσορ τὸν Ἰεχονίαν ... 
καὶ ἤγαγεν αὐτόν, etc. Act. apocr. p. 69. 

1 Τὴ sense Herm.’s explanation (Progr. de locis ep. ad Gal. p. 7) agrees with this. 
He assumes, however, an aposiopesis after ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν dox.... τι. See in opposition, 
Fritzsche, 24 Progr. p. 13. (Fritzschior. Opusc. 211 sq.). The latter considers the words 
ἀπὸ... τι, with which as he thinks vs. 5. should conclude, as parallel to διὰ δὲ robs 
παρειξάκτους ψευδαδ., and renders: propter irreptitios autem et falsos sodales (se cireumcidi 
non passus est), quippe qui... quibus...ut...a@ viris autem, qui auctoritate valerent 
(circumcisionis necessitatem sibi imponi non sivit). See, on the other hand, Meyer. I 
have found no reason to give up my view of the passage. 





4 
: 
: 
: 
' 


ΤΡ 
4 Ἢ 


888. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 569 


So in vs. 4f. διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρειςάκτους ψευδαδέλφους .. . οἷς οὐδὲ 591 
mpos ὥραν εἴξαμεν τῇ ὑποταγῇ etc., the parenthetical insertion in 
vs. 4 occasioned the anacoluthon. The Apostle might either have 
said: on account of the false brethren (to please them) ... we did 
not cause Titus to be circumcised ; or, we could by no means (in 
this respect) give way to the false brethren. The two constructions 
are here blended. In Rom. ii. 17 ff., vss. 17-20 constitute the 
protasis, and vs. 21 begins the apodosis. Paul, having continued 
through several clauses the thought which he brought out as 
protasis, loses sight of εἰ vs. 17, and in appending the apodosis 
vs. 21 falls into another construction by means of οὖν, which 
particle indicates an anacoluthon. The explanation differs but 
little, if οὖν be taken for a conjunction employed to resume and 
sum up the protasis (Klotz, Devar. II. 718 sq.), as it very frequently 
in Greek authors begins the apodosis. For the words ὁ διδάσκων 
etc. ὁ κηρύσσων etc., whether they be taken as a question or as a 
reproachful assertion, alter the natural course of the sentence. 
That is to say, after the protasis εἰ δέ etc. the sentence would 
simply run: thow shouldst carry into effect this knowledge of the 
law by a corresponding conduct (cf. vs.23). That the construction 
selected by Paul is more forcible is obvious.2, The anacoluthon 
in the following passages is harsher: In 2 Pet. ii. 4 the protasis 
εἰ yap ὁ θεὸς ἀγγέχων οὐκ ἐφείσατο etc. has no grammatical apodosis. 
The Apostle meant to say: neither (much less) will he spare these 539 
false teachers. But as one instance of divine punishment sug- ith ed 
gested itself to his mind after another (vss. 4-8), he first in vs. 9 592 
reverts with an altered construction to the thought (generalizing 503 
it also) which was to form the apodosis. In Rom. v. 12, to the ‘thei 
words ὥςπερ δι ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰςῆλθε 
one might have expected the apodosis: οὕτω δι᾿ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου 
(Χριστοῦ) δικαιοσύνη καὶ διὰ τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἡ ζωή. But, by the 


1 To repeat, with Fr. (Progr. I. in ep, ad Gal. p. 34, Ορυβο. p. 178 sq.), after διὰ δὲ 
τοὺς παρειεξάκτους Wevdad., the words οὐκ ἠναγκάσθη περιτμ. (ὁ Tiros) is no easier at all. 
Paul, unless we regard him as an inexpert writer, could only omit these words in case 
the appended relative clauses had made him lose sight of the commencement of the 
period. But in this way the explanations of the sentence, which is at any rate irregular, 
amount pretty much to the same thing. Besides, there would be no singularity of 
style in the statement: but not even Titus... was compelled to be circumcised. And 
because of the false brethren stealthily brought in, he did not allow himself to be compelled (to 
be circumcised). 

2 In a grammatical point of view cf. Xen. C. 6, 2, 9, where the commencement ἐπεὶ 
δὲ... ἦλθον etc. § 12is resumed in the words ὡς οὖν ταῦτα ἤκουσεν ὁ στρατὸς τοῦ Κύρου, 
and the apodosis connected with it. 

72 


570  §68. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 


explanation annexed in vss. 12-14 to εἰςῆλθεν ἡ ἁμαρτία καὶ 6 
θάνατος, the regular construction is broken off (though in ὅς ἐστι 
τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος aN intimation of the antithesis is given); and 
besides, the Apostle recollects that not merely a simple parallel 
between Adam and Christ might be drawn (ὥςπερ ... οὕτως), but 
that something greater and more pervasive has proceeded from 
Christ than from Adam. Hence the epanorthosis πολλῷ μᾶλλον, 
which was noticed by so early an expositor as Calvin. The con- 
nection is resumed in the words ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡς τὸ παράπτωμα etc. 
vs. 15, which logically absorb the apodosis, and in εἰ yap .. . ἀπέθανον 
the substance of the protasis vs. 12 is briefly recapitulated. After 
this Paul combines vs. 18 the twofold parallel (likeness and un- 
likeness) in one final result. In a similar way must be explained 
1 Tim. i. 8 ff. Καθὼς παρεκάλεσα entirely wants an apodosis, 
which escaped the attention of Paul while he was introducing 
directly into the protasis the object of παρακαλεῖν. The apodosis 
should run thus: οὕτω καὶ viv παρακαλῶ, ἵνα παραγγείλῃς ete. 
To consider vss. 5-17 as a parenthesis, as even Bengel does, is 
wholly unnatural ; it is still more absurd, however, to take καθώς 
for an untranslatable particle of transition (Heydenreich). Many 
ancient and modern expositors regard Rom. ix. 22 ff. as a very 
singular and in part double anacoluthon ; see the different views 
in Reiche. But it is probably simpler to join καὶ ἵνα vs. 22 to 
ἤνεγκεν, and at the end of vs. 23 to conceive the apodosis as 
suppressed : Jf God, determined to show forth his wrath, bore with 
all long-suffering the vessels of his wrath, ... also in order to 
make known the riches etc....: what then? what shall we say? 
(must not, then, all censure be silent ?). The bearing of the σκεύη 
ὀργῆς is not merely regarded as a proof of his waxpod., but, at the 
same time, as occasioned by the purpose of ‘bringing to view the 
riches of his glory which he destined for the σκεύη ἐλέους. The 
instant destruction of the σκεύη ὀργῆς (in this case the unbelieving 
Jews) would have been perfectly just; but God endured them 
with long-suffering (thus tempering his justice with kindness), 
both the aim and the result of this being the more striking display 
593 (by the contrast) of the greatness of his grace towards the σκεύη 
531 ἐλέους. The δέ in vs. 22 is not ody, and hence the continuation of 
ithe. the thought expressed in vss. 20, 21 is not probable. That God 
is perfectly free in bestowing the tokens of his grace, had been 
sufficiently stated. The creature cannot contend with the Creator, 
—that is enough. But, resumes Paul, God is not so rigorous as 


§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 571 


he might be, and have no fear of the censure of men. [It is 504 
probably still simpler, without supplying an apodosis, to take εἰ... shel. 
ἤνεγκεν as the condition, and καὶ (sc. ἤνεγκεν) ἵνα vs. 23 as the 
conclusion: if God ... endured ..., he endured them also or at 

the same time to the end that, etc.]| As to Acts x. 86 see above, 

§ 62, 3 p.564. On Rom. xii. 6 ff. see below, 11. 1 p.578. Col. i. 21 

is in any event an anacoluthon, whether we read with Lehm. ἀπο- 
κατηλλάγητε, Or With the text. rec. ἀποκατήλλαξεν. On 2 Pet. 

i. 17 see § 45, 6 b. p. 851, and on 1 Cor. xii. 2 Meyer. 


In several other passages where expositors have thought they found an 
anacoluthon, I can discover nothing of the sort. Rom. vii. 21 εὑρίσκω dpa 
τὸν νόμον τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοὶ ποιεῖν τὸ καλόν, ὅτι ἐμοὶ TO κακὸν παράκειται, Where 
according to Fr. (Conject. p. 50) there is a blending of two constructions, 
has by this scholar been subsequently explained otherwise, that is, in 
accordance with Knapp’s view ; see above, ὃ 61, 5 p. 557. Likewise, in 
Heb. viii. 9 there is no blending of two constructions (Fr. Conject. p. 34). 
The quotation from the Sept. ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπιλαβομένου pov τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν 
may be an unusual expression, but it is not incorrect. The form of the 
expression was unquestionably occasioned by the Hebrew (for it is a 
quotation from Jer, xxxi. 32) D3 "pm ona. The participle is used 
instead of the Infin., as in Jer. xxix. 2; ef. Bar. ii. 28. In 1 Pet. ii. 7 
ἀπειθοῦσι δέ is grammatically connected with the words of the quotation, 
οὗτος ἐγενήθη etc. In Rom. i. 26, 27 a decision is difficult because the 
reading varies between ὁμοίως δὲ καί and ὁμοίως τε καί. The former 
appears to have more external evidence in its support; and Bornem. 
(neues theol. Journ. VI. 145) has preferred it (as well as Lchm.), and 
endeavored to vindicate it by the frequent recurrence of the expression in 
the N. T. Matt. xxvi. 35; xxvii. 41 (Mark xv. 31); Luke v. 10; x. 32; 
1 Cor. vii. 3 f.; Jas. ii. 25, and also in Greek authors, as Diod. Sic. 17, 
111. Butas none of these passages is preceded by re, they are inadequate ; 
cf., however, the passage quoted by Fr. from Plat. symp. 186 6. 4 τε οὖν 
ἰατρικὴ ... ὡςαύτως δὲ καὶ γυμναστική. Grammatically, therefore, the 
reading supported by the most authoritative Codd. may be defended, and 
would even be very appropriate, as the Apostle obviously wishes to give 
the greater prominence to what was done by the dfpeves (he dwells on it 
in vs. 27, severely condemning the wickedness). Now comes the question 
whether either or both of these two readings causes an anacoluthon ? 
With the reading 6p. τε καί [Cod. Sin.] there is no more an anacoluthon 
than in the Latin nam et feminae... et similiter etiam mares. On the 594 
other hand, if we read ou. δὲ καί the natural sequence is broken, exactly 
as in Latin et feminae ... similiter vero etiam mares. Klotz, Devar. Il. 532 
740. Τη Heb. iii. 15 we must probably seek for the apodosis in vs. 16 th ob 
tives yap guinam etc., as Bleek, Tholuck, and others have done. In 2 Cor. 


572 § 6858. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 


Vili. 3 αὐθαίρετοι is connected with ἑαυτοὺς ἔδωκαν vs. 5. In 1 Cor. v. 11, 
in the words τῷ τοιούτῳ μηδὲ συνεσθίειν we ought not with Erasmus to find 
an anacoluthon, but an intensive repetition of συναναμίγν. In Jas. ii. 2 ff. 
the anacoluthon disappears, if vs. 4 καὶ οὐ etc. be taken interrogatively, 
as is done now by most critics, and also by Lchm. Jno. xiii. 1 contains 
: no grammatical anacoluthon; the difficulty must be disposed of hermeneu- 
5065 tically. 1 Cor. ix. 15, if ἵνα before τις is spurious (ΤΠ, has restored it), 
6th ed. would be not so much an anacoluthon as an aposiopesis, see Mey. Lastly, 
in Eph. iii. 18 the participles are probably to be connected with the clause 

iva ἐξισχύσητε etc., see Mey. in loc. 

2. The anacolutha hitherto elucidated are of such a nature that 
they might occur in any language. But in Greek certain peculiar 
species of anacoluthon became established by usage, which must 
now be mentioned : 

a. If a sentence is continued by means of participles, these, 
when at a distance from the governing verb, not unfrequently 
assume an abnormal case (see Vig. p. 337 sqq.; Rost 704), e.g. Eph. 
iv. 2f. παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς... περιπατῆσαι... ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων 
ἐν ἀγάπῃ, σπουδάζοντες etc. (as if the exhortation were direct: 
mepuratnoate), also i. 18 (where Meyer makes unnecessary dif- 
ficulties) ; Col. iii. 16 ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνοικείτω ἐν ὑμῖν 
πλουσίως, ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ διδάσκοντες καὶ νουθετοῦντες 
ἑαυτούς οἷο. ; ii. 2 ἵνα παρακληθῶσιν αἱ καρδίαι αὐτῶν συμβιβα- 
σθέντες ἐν ἀγάπῃ etc. (as if παρακαλεῖσθαι were referred to the 
persons themselves), Col. 1.10 [7]; 2 Cor. ix. 10 f. ὁ ἐπιχορηγῶν ... 
χορηγήσαι Kal πληθύναι τὸν σπόρον ὑμῶν ... ὑμῶν, ἐν παντὶ πλου- 
τιζόμενοι etc.; vs. 121. ἡ διακονία (ἐστὶ) περισσεύουσα διὰ 
πολλῶν εὐχαριστιῶν, διὰ τῆς δοκιμῆς τ. διακονίας ταύτης δοξάζοντες 
τὸν θεόν (as if ὅτε πολλοὶ εὐχαριστοῦσιν had preceded) cf. Xen. 
Cyr. 1, 4, 26. See also 2 Cor. i. 7; vii. 5; Phil. i. 29f.; iii. 10; 
2 Pet. iii. 3; Acts xxvi. 3; Jude 16. Cf. in general, Markland, 
Lys. p. 364, Reiske Vol. V.; Buttm. Soph. Philoct. p. 110; Seidler, 
Kurip. Iphig. T. 1072; Kiihner 11. 377 f.; Schwarz, soloecism. p. 89, 
also Stallb. Plat. apol. p. 185 sq. and sympos. p. 88. Some of the 
anacolutha of this sort may be considered as intentional. The 

595 thoughts when expressed by the Nom. of participles receive 
greater prominence ; whereas the oblique cases merge them rather 
in the sentence as a whole (singularly so in Jude 16), and are 
marked as accessory. But most of them are occasioned by the 
author’s having intended, in the preceding part of the sentence, 
to employ a different substantive, kindred in sense. SBesides, cf. 
Evang. apocr. pp. 169, 445. 


ὃ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE, 573 


Of another sort are Mark xii. 40; Phil. iii. 18 f., on which see § 59, 8 b. 593 
p. 532. In Rom. xiii. 11 καὶ τοῦτο εἰδότες is connected with ὀφείλετε vs. 8 ; ith od, 
and 1 Pet. ii. 16 connects itself, as the ideas suggest, with the Imperative 
. ὑποτάγητε in vs. 13. 


b. Frequently after a participle the construction passes over into 
a finite verb, which is apt to be accompanied by dé; as, Col. i. 26 
πληρῶσαι Tov λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, TO μυστήριον TO ἀποκεκρυμμένον 
ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων... νυνὶ δὲ ἐφαν ερώ θη instead of νυνὶ δὲ φανερωθέν 
(ef. Her. 6,25; Thue. 1, 67), 1 Cor. vii. 87 ὃς ἕστηκεν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ, 
μὴ ἔχων ἀνάγκην, ἐξουσίαν δὲ ἔχει (instead of éywv).1 We must 506 
not, with Meyer, refer to this head 1 Cor. iv. 14; nor Eph. ii. 3, Shed 
where ἦμεν is parallel to ἀνεστράφημεν. This transition occurs 
without δέ in Eph. i. 20 κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν ... ἣν ἐνήργησεν ἐν τῷ 
Χριστῷ, ἐγείρας αὐτὸν ... καὶ ἐκάθισεν, 2 Cor. vi. 9; Ino. v. 44; 
Col. i. 6 (Paus. 10, 9,1). As to 2 Jno. 2 see below, 11. 1 p. 578. An 
effort to attain a more simple structure, or to give prominence to 
the second thought (particularly in 2 Cor. vi. 9; ef. Xen. Cyr. 
5, 4, 29), is not unfrequently the cause of such an anacoluthon. 
Heb. viii. 10 (from the O. T.) is to be explained thus: αὕτη ἡ 
διαθήκη, ἣν διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ ᾿Ισραὴλ ... διδοὺς νόμους pov εἰς 
τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς. Τὸ 
render καί before érvyp. by etiam, as some (Bohme, for instance) 
do, is forced, and far from being favored by x. 16. As to Jno. 
i. 82 τεθέαμαι τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον... καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν 
(cf. vs. 88 ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, 
' the correct explanation has already been indicated by BCrus. Cf. 
also Schaef. Dion. H. p. 31 and Demosth. II. 75; V. 437, 573, also 
Plutarch. IV. 323; Blume, Lycurg. p. 147; Mtth. S.1527f. In 
the Codd. in such passages the participle is sometimes found as a 
correction, e.g. in Eph. as above, where Lchm. nevertheless has 
adopted καθίσας as genuine. A kindred sort of anacoluthon 
occurs in 2 Cor. v. 6 ff. θαῤῥοῦντες οὖν πάντοτε... θαῤῥοῦμεν δὲ 
καὶ εὐδοκοῦμεν, where Paul, after several intermediate clauses, 
repeats θαῤῥοῦντες, which he intended to construe with evdox., in 596 
the form of the finite verb. 

c. A clause, which had begun with ὅτι, concludes with the 
(Acc. and) Infin., as if that particle had not been employed at all ; 
as, Acts xxvii. 10 θεωρῶ, ὅτι μετὰ ὕβρεως καὶ πολλῆς ζημίας ... 
μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι τὸν πλοῦν cf. Plat. Gorg. 458 ". ἐγὼ γὰρ εὖ 


1 The case examined by Hm. Soph. El. p. 153, and Buttm. Demosth. Mid. p. 149, is 
different. 


574 § 65. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 


ἴσθ᾽ ὅτι, ὡς ἐμαυτὸν πείθω, εἴπερ... καὶ ἐμὲ εἶναι τούτων ἕνα, see 
above, § 44, note 2, p. 339. On the other hand, in Aelian. 12, 39 
the construction φασὶ Σεμίραμιν is founded on an Acc. with the 


534 Inf., but is followed by μέγα ἐφρόνει, as if ὅτι had preceded. Similar 
ἸΏ οἱ, i; Plaut. Trucul. 2, 2,62. With this may be compared also Jno. 


507 


6th ed. 


= 


597 


viii. 54 ὃν ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι θεὸς ὑμῶν ἐστι (where θεὸν ὑμῶν εἶναι 
might have been used). This, however, is rather to be considered 
as Attraction ; see below. 

d. The principal verb in the sentence does not regularly cor- 
respond to the Nominative or Acc. placed at the beginning of the 
sentence (casus pendentes, Wannowski, Syntax. anomal. p. 54 sq. ; 
see, however, H. L.-Z. 1836. I. 3838); as, 1 Jno. ii. 24 ὑμεῖς, ὃ 
ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ἐν ὑμῖν μενέτω, and vs. 27 Kal ὑμεῖς, τὸ χρίσμα 
ὃ ἐλάβετε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει and you, the anointing, which ... 
abides in you. In both passages, ὑμεῖς, if placed in the relative 
clause (Lchm.), would in that position of precedence be too em- 
phatic. Luke xxi. 6 ταῦτα ἃ θεωρεῖτε, ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι, ἐν als 
οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται λίθος ἐπὶ λίθῳ etc. these things which ye behold, — 
there will come days in which (even to the last stone they will be 
destroyed) not a stone (of them) will be left on another. So also 
in Jno. vi. 89; vii. 38; xv. 2; Matt. vii. 24; xii. 86; Rey. ii. 26; 
ili. 12,21; vi. 8. Cf. Exod. ix. 7; Xen. Cyr. 2, 3,5; Oec. 1,14; 
Ael. 7, 1. 2 Cor. xii. 17 μή τινα ὧν ἀπέσταλκα πρὸς ὑμᾶς, δὲ 
αὐτοῦ ἐπλεονέκτησα ὑμᾶς ; for, have I sent to you any one of those 
etc. inorder to defraud you? Rom. viii.3 τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου, 
ἐν ᾧ ἠσθένει... ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν πέμψας ... κατέκρινε τὴν 
ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί, what to the law was impossible ... God con- 
demned, sending his Son, sin in the flesh, for, that God did, and 
condemned etc. Here, however, τὸ ἀδύν. may also be regarded as 
a predicate placed before a proposition complete in itself, and may 
be resolved ὃ yap ἀδύνατόν ἐστι, like Heb. viii. 1 κεφάλαιον ἐπὶ τοῖς 
λεγομένοις, τοιοῦτον ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα etc. see ὃ 82, 7 p. 231; ef. 
Kiihner 11. 156. 


Several critics, Olsh. among them, have supposed that there is an Accus. 
absol. (?) in Acts x. 86 τὸν λόγον ὃν ἀπέστειλε τοῖς υἱοῖς ᾿Ισραήλ ete. the 
word, which (or which word) he sent first to the children of Israel (namely, 
the word vs. 35 ἐν παντὶ ἔθνει etc.). Yet see ὃ 62, 3 p. 564. 

An anacoluthon peculiar to the N.T. sometimes. occurs, where the 
writer proceeds in the words of an 0. T. statement instead of in his own, 
e.g. Rom. xv. 3 καὶ yap ὁ Χριστὸς οὐχ ἑαυτῷ ἤρεσεν, ἀλλά, καθὼς γέγραπται, 
οἱ ὀνειδισμοὶ τῶν ὀνειδιζόντων σε ἐπέπεσαν ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ (instead of — but, to please 


§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE, 575 


God, he submitted to the cruelest reproaches) vs. 21; ix. 7; cf 1 Cor. 
ii. 9; iii. 21; Heb. iii. 7. Yet see below, § 64, 7 p. 598. 


e. Under the head of anacoluthon comes also the use of μέν 
without a subsequent parallel clause (made prominent by δέ), 
Hm. Vig. 841 sq. In this case either 

a) the parallel member is easily to be supplied from the clause 
with μέν, being in a manner included in it, as in Heb. vi. 16 ἄνθρωποι 
μὲν yap κατὰ τοῦ μείζονος ὀμνύουσι men swear by the greater, but 
God can swear only by himself, cf. vs. 18 (Plat. Protag. 334 a.), 535 
yet this μέν is doubtful [and wanting also in Cod. Sin.] ; Col. ii. 23 ΤᾺ εἰ, 
ἅτινά ἐστι λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ καί etc. which, 
indeed, have an appearance of wisdom, but in fact are not (Xen. 
An. 1, 2,1), Rom. x. 1, where perhaps Paul purposely avoided 
the painful antithesis (which is brought out in vs. 3 but softened 
by a compliment), see further 1 Cor. v. 3. Cf. Xen. Hier. 1, 7; 
7,4; Mem. 8, 12, 1; Plat. Phaed. 58a.; Aristoph. pax 13; see 
Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 105; Held, Plutarch. A. Paull. p. 123. Or 

8) the antithetic member is evidently added, but in another 
construction ; as, Rom. xi. 13 f. ἐφ᾽ ὅσον μὲν οὖν εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ἐθνῶν 
ἀπόστολος, τὴν διακονίαν μου δοξάζω, εἴπως παραζηλώσω μου τὴν 
σάρκα οἴο. Here the clause with δέ lies wrapt up in εἴπως παραΐζ.; 
instead of Paul’s writing regularly : inasmuch as I am the apostle 
of the Gentiles, I glorify mine office (preaching zealously to the 
Gentiles), but I have in this the benefit of the Jews in view (1 will 
thus render the Jews emulous), I am, indeed, in fact an apostle 
to the Gentiles, but at the same time in purpose an apostle to the 508 
Jews. Or Gith ed, 

y) the construction is entirely broken off, and the parallel clause 
must be gathered by the reader from the sequel, e.g. Acts i. 1 τὸν 
μὲν πρῶτον λόγον ἐποιησάμην περὶ πάντων ... ἀνελήφθη. Now the 
writer ought to proceed: and the history from this point of time 
(the Ascension) J will narrate now in the second part of my work ; 
but by the mention of the apostles vs. 3 he is led to refer to Christ’s 
appearance after his resurrection, and connects immediately with 
this the continuation of the narrative. Rom. vii. 12 ὥςτε ὁ μὲν νόμος 598 
ἅγιος καὶ ἡ ἐντολὴ ἁγία καὶ δικαία καὶ ἀγαθή the law, indeed, is holy, 
and the commandment is holy etc. but ἁμαρτία, made active in the 
σάρξ, misuses it (in the way indicated vs. 8). This thought the 
Apostle brings out in vs. 18 by a different turn of expression. Cf. 
further, Rom. i. 8; iii. 2; 1 Cor. xi. 18 (in all these cases πρῶτον 
μέν, see below), Heb. ix. 1; 2 Cor. xii. 12 (see Riick. in loc.), Acts 


576 § 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 


iii. 13; xix. 4 (in the last passage μέν is not fully established), 
xxvi. 4. Instances in Greek writers are, Kurip. Orest. 8; Xen. 
C.2,1,4; 4,5,50; Mem. 1, 2,2; 2, 6,3; Plato, Apol. 214d. ; 
Reisig, Soph. Oed. Col. p. 8398; Locella, Xen. Ephes. p. 225 and 
many others. In Luke viii. 5 ff.; Jno. xi. 6; xix. 32; Jas. iii. 17 
the correlative particle is not entirely omitted, only for δέ we find 
sometimes ἔπειτα (Heind. Plat. Phaed. p.133; Schaef. melet. p. 61), 
sometimes xa‘; and that even in Greek authors μὲν ... ἔπειτα, 
μὲν ... καί (Thue. 5, 60 and 71), μὲν... τε are used correlatively, 
is well known, and not strange, cf. Ast, Plat. legg. p. 230; Matthiae, 
EKurip. Orest. 24; Baiter, ind. ad Isocr. paneg. p. 133; Weber, 
Demosth. 257; Maetzner, Antiph. pp. 209, 257. Sometimes the 
clause with δέ is somewhat remote, as in 2 Cor. ix. 1, 3 (Thue. 2, 


536 74), probably also in 1 Cor. xi. 18 (see just below) ; or as respects 


Tth ed 


‘expression is not completely parallel, as in Gal. iv. 24, 26. 


Rom. i. 8 πρῶτον μὲν εὐχαριστῶ. ete. is unquestionably an anacoluthon. 
The Apostle when he used this phrase had in mind a δεύτερον or εἶτα, 
which, however, in consequence of a change in the thought does not follow. 
The remark of Wyttenbach (Plut. Mor. I. 47, ed. Lips.) is applicable here : 
si solum posuisset πρῶτον, poterat accipi pro maxime, ante omnia (so it is 
rendered by nearly all expositors) ; nune quum μέν addidit, videtur voluisse 
alia subjungere, tum sui oblitus esse. Cf. also Isocr. Areopag. p. 344; 
Xen. M. 1, 1, 2; Schaef. Demosth. IV. 142; Maetzner, Antiph. p. 191. 
In 1 Cor. xi. 18 πρῶτον μὲν yap συνερχομένων ὑμῶν ete., ἔπειτα δέ is 
probably implied in vs. 20 ff. ; and Paul properly meant to write: In the 
first place, I hear that when ye come together there are divisions among 
you, and further, that irregularities occur at the Lord’s Supper. Paul 
conceives the latter from a different point of view than the divisions. 
Rom. iii. 2 Tholuck has already correctly explained. 

Likewise in Matt. viii. 21 ἐπίτρεψόν por πρῶτον ἀπελθεῖν καὶ θάψαι ete. 


509 there is nothing corresponding to πρῶτον; yet we, too, say: let me first 
6th οἱ, (in the first place) go and bury, — whereupon every one readily supplies 


according to the context: I will then return (and follow thee, vss. 19, 22). 
When in the combination re... καί a πρῶτον is inserted after τε, as in 
Rom. i. 16; ii. 9 ἢν, it means especially, chiefly. In 2 Cor. viii. 5, too, 


599 πρῶτον ... καί does not stand for πρῶτον ... ἔπειτα ; see Mey. 


An anacoluthon similar to that with μέν occurs sometimes with καί where 
it ought to have been repeated (as well... asalso). Thus in 1 Cor. vii. 38 
ὥςτε καὶ 6 ἐκγαμίζων καλῶς ποιεῖ, ὃ δὲ μὴ ἐκγαμίζων κρεῖσσον ποιεῖ the sen- 
tence is strictly speaking so laid out that καὶ 6 pi... καλῶς ποιεῖ ought to 
follow. But Paul, while intending to express himself thus, corrects him- 
self and employs the comparative, and then the adversative particle appears 
more appropriate. There is, however, weighty evidence against δέ; and 


§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. δ 


it may have been introduced by transcribers for the reason just mentioned, 
instead of the original καί 


II. 1. Different from anacoluthon is the oratio variata (Jacob, 

Lucian. Alex. p. 22; Jacobs, Aelian. p.6; Bremi, Aeschin. II. 7 ; 
Mith. 1530 ff.). It takes place when, in parallel sentences and 
members of sentences, two (synonymous) constructions have been 
adopted, each of which is complete in itself— heterogeneous structure. 
It occurs in accurate writers particularly when the continuance 
of the previous construction would have been heavy, obscure, or 
not quite suited to the thought (Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. 254; 
Beier, Cic. off. II. 38); sometimes, also, regard for variety of. 
expression has had influence. 

We subjoin, in the first place, some instances of a simple 
description: 1 Jno. ii. 2 ἱλασμὸς περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, ov περὶ 
τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ Kal περὶ ὅλου TOD κόσμου (where, 
either instead of the last words the writer might have used περὶ 
τῶν ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου, ΟΥ̓ instead of the first, περὶ ἡμῶν), similar 537 
are Heb. ix. 7; Acts xx. 34 (1 Kings iii. 1; iv. 30; Lucian. parasit. Mh eb 
20); Eph. v. 88 καὶ ὑμεῖς οἱ καθ᾽ ἕνα ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα 
οὕτως ἀγαπάτω ὡς ἑαυτόν, ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φόβηται τὸν ἄνδρα (cf. ὃ 48, 

5, and Jno. xiii. 29); Eph. v. 27 ἵνα παραστήσῃ ἑαυτῷ ἔνδοξον τὴν 
once) μὴ ἔχουσαν σπῖλον ... ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ἢ (ἡ Sean) ἁγία κ. 
ἄμωμος," οἵ, Acta apocr. p. 179 ; “Phil. li. 22 ὅτι, ὡς πατρὶ τέκνον, 
σὺν ἐμοὶ ἐδούλευσεν εἰς τὸ εὐωγγέλιον that, as a child a father, he 
served (me in my apostolic calling, more appositely) with me etc., 
Rom. iv. 12 (Ael. an. 2, 42) ; Luke ix. 1; i. 73 f.2; Rom. i. 12; 

ef. Mtth. 1529 f.; Schwarz, soloec. p. 89 sq. ; 1 Οὐδ xiv. 1 ζηλοῦτε 

τὰ πνευματικά, μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα προφητεύητε (where Paul might 
have written τὸ προφητεύειν), cf. vs. 5 and vs. 11; Rev. iii. 18; 600 - 
Acts xxii. 17. 

The following are bolder: Mark xii. 38 f. τῶν θελόντων ἐν στολαῖς 
περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀσπασμοὺς (ἀσπάζεσθαι) ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς etc. ; 510 
Jno. viii. ὅ8 μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν ᾿Αβραάμ, ὅςτις Med 
ἀπέθανε ; καὶ οἱ προφῆται ἀπέθανον, where the regular construction 
required the continuation of the interrogative form: καὶ τῶν 
προφητῶν, oitwes ἀπέθ.; 1 Cor. vii. 13 γυνή, ἥτις ἔχει ἄνδρα 


1 Jno. xi. 52 (ἤμελλεν ἀποθνήσκειν) οὐχ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους μόνον, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα καὶ τὰ τέκνα... 
συναγάγη εἰς ἕν does not come under this head. There was here no more convenient 
mode of expression for the second clause. 

? On the other hand, in Luke i. 55 the words τῷ ᾿Αβραάμ etc. belong to μνησϑῆναι 
ἐλέους, especially on account of εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. 

73 


578 ὃ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 


ἄπιστον καὶ οὗτος συνευδοκεῖ (καὶ συνευδοκοῦντα) οἰκεῖν μετ᾽ αὐτῆς, 
μὴ ἀφιέτω αὐτόν, see above, p. 150; ef. similar instances in Luke 
xvii. 81 and Jno. xv. 5. In Rom. xii. 6 sq. ἔχοντες δὲ χαρίσματα 
κατὰ τὴν χάριν... εἴτε προφητείαν κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως, 
εἴτε διακονίαν ἐν τῇ διακονίᾳ, εἴτε ὁ διδάσκων ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ, 
εἴτε ὁ παρακαλῶν ἐν τῇ παρακλήσει the construction (Acc. governed 
by ἔχοντες.) is kept up only as far as ἐν τῇ διακ., then commences 
a new construction with concretes, for which Paul might have 
written εἴτε διδασκαλίαν... παράκλησιν ete. In 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff. 
Paul enumerates the sufferings attendant on the apostolic calling, 
by which he had proved himself to be the servant of Christ, and 
that in no ordinary degree. First, ἐν κόποις περίσσοτ. etc. is 
simply appended, each particular is enhanced by an adverb of 
degree, then follow narrative Aorists and Perfects vs. 24 f.; Paul 
then returns to substantives with the instrumental Dative and the 
instrumental ἐν by turns, vss. 26,27. See, further, Jno. v. 44; 
Phil. i. 23 f.; 1 Jno. iii. 24. 

The alteration in the construction is manifestly intentional; 
namely, for the purpose of bringing out the thought more forcibly 
than would have been done by a uniform structure, in 2 Jno. 2 
διὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τὴν μένουσαν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ἔσται εἰς τὸν 
αἰῶνα. Also in Rom. ii. 9sq. the first time (in reference to 

538 misery) ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ψυχήν is used, the second time (in reference 
ithe. to salvation) the more appropriate personal Dative. The oratio 
variata occurs in connection with an ellipsis, in 2 Cor. vili. 23 ; 
Rom. ii. 8; xi. 22 and Mark vi. 8 παρήγγειλεν αὐτοῖς, ἵνα μηδὲν 
αἴρωσιν εἰς ὁδόν ... ἀλλ᾽ ὑποδεδεμένους σανδάλια (sc. πορεύ-. 
601 εσθαι) καὶ μὴ ἐνδύσασθαι (here ἐνδύσησθε is the better reading) 
δύο χιτῶνας, see Fr. ἴῃ loc. In Rom. xii. 2 we should probably 
read the Inf. συσχηματίξζεσθαι, and not the Imperat. συσχηματίξζεσθε, 


1 Mark ii. 23 can hardly, with Fr., be brought under the head of TARA structurae, 
if measured by the standard of cultivated prose : ἐγένετο παραπορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν ... διὰ 
τῶν σπορίμων, καὶ ἤρξαντο οἱ μαθηταί etc. for ἄρξασθαι τοὺς μαθητάς. The latter 
construction would be too heavy for the narrative style of the Evangelists. Besides, 
ἐγένετο stands in no necessary relation to ἄρξασθαι τοὺς wad. (as if, it came to, pass that, 
as he ..., the disciples plucked ears) ; but Mark meant: It came to pass, that he went 
through the grain fields on the Sabbath-day, and (then) the disciples plucked etc. Still 
less can I perceive in 1 Cor. iv. 14; Eph. ii. 11-13 or even in Phil. i. 13 any remarkable 
alteration of the construction. No writer expresses himself with such painful nicety 
as never to say, I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn YOtt, 
instead of, not to shame you... but... to warn, But in Acts xxi. 28 (Fr. conject. I. 
42 sq.) ἔτι τε shows that Luke wished to give prominence to. what follows, and hence 
the independent construction of this new clause. 





§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 579 


From Greek authors many similar instances might be adduced. 
Thus Paus. 1, 19, 5 τοῦ Νίσου λέγεται θυγατέρα ἐρασθῆναι Μίνω 

καὶ ὡς ἀπέκειρε τὰς τρίχας τοῦ πατρός, 5,1,2; 8, 22, 4 Πείσανδρος 

δὲ αὐτὸν ὁ Καμιρεὺς ἀποκτεῖναι τὰς ὄρνιθας οὐ φησίν, ἀλλὰ ὡς ψόφῳ 
κροτάλων ἐκδιώξειεν αὐτάς. Thuc. 8, Τ8 ; Xen. Μ. 2, 1, ὃ ; Hell. 

2, 8,19; Anab. 2,5, δ; Aelian. anim. 10, 18. As to Mark xii. 38f. 

ef. especially Lys. caed. Eratosth. 21. From the Sept. may be 
quoted Gen. xxxi. 33; Judg. xvi. 24; 3 Esdras iv. 48; viii. 22, 80; 511 
Neh. x. 30. ‘In Mark iii. 14 ff., with the principal words ἐποίησε Sh ο. 
δώδεκα, iva etc. vss. 14, 15, which are complete in themselves, is 
connected first the detached statement vs. 16 καὶ ἐπέθηκεν ὄνομα ἡ 
τῷ Σίμωνι etc. in reference to the chief apostle, then follow in 
vss. 17-19 the names of the rest in direct dependence on ἐποίησεν, 
and only in vs. 17 is subjoined a similar statement, which no more 
breaks the flow of the discourse than in vs. 19 ὃς καὶ παρέδωκεν 
etc. does. The whole structure would be regular had Mark said 

in vs. 16 Σίμωνα, ᾧ ἐπέθηκεν ὄνομα etc. 


Under this head comes also the transition from a relative construction 
to a personal, as in 1 Cor. viii. 6 εἷς θεὸς ... ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς 
αὐτόν, 2 Pet. ii. ὃ οἷς τὸ κρίμα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ καὶ ἡ ἀπώλεια αὐτῶν 
οὐ νυστάζει, Rev. ii. 18, see above, p. 149; Weber, Demosth. p. 355 sq. 
Essentially similar is Luke x. 8 εἰς ἣν ἂν πόλιν εἰςέρχησθε, καὶ δέχωνται (οἱ 
πολῖται) ὑμᾶς etc. 

On Rev. vii.9 εἶδον καὶ ἰδοὺ ὄχλος ... ἑστῶτες... περιβεβλημένους, 
cf. xiv. 14, see above, ὃ 59, 11 p. 535. Both passages contain a blending 
of two constructions, as in Rev. xviii. 12f., where are appended to τὸν 
γόμον first appositive Genitives, then an Acc. (πᾶν ξύλον), afterwards 
(x. ἵππων ete.) Genitives again, lastly (ψυχὰς ἀνθρ.) another Acc. On the 539 
other hand, in ii. 17, in accordance with the proper distinction of cases, ‘th ed. 
first a Gen. and then an Acc. are made to depend on δώσω. 


2. Moreover, the transition (very frequent in Greek prose 
authors) from the oratio obliqua to the recta, and vice versa, 
deserves special attention (d’Orville, Charit. p. 89 and 847 ; Heind. 
Protag. p. 510 sq. ; Jacobs, Aelian. p. 46,475; Ast, Plat. lege. 
p. 160 ; Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 451; Bornem. Xen. Mem. p. 253; 
Fr. Marc. p. 212): Acts xxiii. 22 ἀπέλυσε τὸν νεανίαν παραγγείλας 
μηδενὶ ἐκλαλῆσαι, ὅτι ταῦτα ἐνεφάνισας πρός pe, VSS. 23, 24 εἶπεν" 
ἑτοιμάσατε ... κτήνη τε παραστῆσαι, Luke ν. 14 παρήγγείλεν αὐτῷ 602 
μηδενὶ εἰπεῖν, ἀλχὰ ἀπελθὼν δεῖξον, Mark vi. 9; cf. Xen. Hell. 2, 
1, 25; An. 1, 3, 14 and the passages from Joseph. in Kypke I. 
229 sq.; Mark xi. 81 sq. ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, ἐρεῖ" διατί οὖν 


580 § 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ ; ἀλλ᾽ εἴπωμεν" ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ; ; ἐφοβοῦντα 
τὸν λαόν (where the narrator proceeds in his own words). With 
Acts i. 4 cf. Lysias in Diogit. 12 ἐπειδὴ δὲ συνήλθομεν, ἤρετο αὐτὸν 
ἡ γυνή, τίνα ποτὲ ψυχὴν ἔχων ἀξιοῖ περὶ τῶν παίδων τοιαύτῃ γνώμῃ 
χρῆσθαι, ἀδελφὸς μὲν Sv τοῦ πατρός, πατὴρ δ᾽ ἐμός ete. (Geopon. 
1,12,6). See also Jno. xiii. 29; Acts xvii. 8 ; on the other hand, 
in Matt. ix. 6 the narrator intercalates τότε λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ 
among the words of Christ, οἵ. Mark ii. 10; Luke v. 24. This 
explanation is the simplest. Meyer is artificial.1 


512 A transition from the Sing. to the Plur., and vice versa, occurs in Rom. 
δι οἱ, iii, 7 f.; xii. 16 ff. 20; 1 Cor. iv. (2) 6f. (Αδαμ. 5, 8); 2 Cor. xi. 6; 
Jas. ἢ. 16; Gal. iv. 6 f. (vi. 1); Schweigh. Arrian. Epict. IT. 1. 94, 278; 
Matthiae, Eurip. Orest. 111; Schaef. Demosth. IV. 106; Schwarz, soloec. 
107. Likewise Rom. ii. 15 ἐν τ. καρδίαις αὐτῶν, συμμαρτυρούσης αὐτῶν 
τῆς συνειδήσεως may be referred to this head. The transition from 
the Sing. to the Plur. in Luke v. 4 is intentional, see Bornem. in loc. As 
to the Plur. in apposition with a Sing. in 1 Jno. v. 16 see § 59, 8 p. 530, 
A heterogeneous appositive construction occurs in Rev. i. 6 ἐποίησεν 
ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ, see ὃ 59, 8. So also in other construc- 
tions the Greek authors sometimes place coneretes and abstracts in 
juxtaposition, see Bremi, Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 25 ; Weber, Demosth. 260. 

Cf. also Caes. civ. 3, 82 erat plena lictorum et imperiorum provincia. 


540 §64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES; ELLIPSIS,? 
Tth ed. APOSIOPESIS. 
603 
I. The erroneous and variable notions about Ellipsis (and 
Pleonasm) current until very recently, and derived from the 
uncritical compilations of L. Bos® and his followers (cf. Haab 


Ρ. 276 ff.), and of N. T. philologists in particular, were first cor- 


1 Matt. xvi. 11 πῶς ob νοεῖτε, ὅτι οὐ περὶ ἄρτων εἶπον ὑμῖν " mposéxere δὲ ἀπὸ THs ζύμης 
τῶν Φαρισαίων etc. is of ἃ different sort, as here only the direct words of Jesus, used in 
vs. 6, are as such repeated. Likewise Jno. x. 36 contains nothing remarkable. 

2 See K. F. Krumbholz, de ellips. in N. T. usu freq. in his operar. subseciv. lib. 1. 
Norimb. 1736. 8vo. πο. 11; 1. A. Wolf, de agnitione ellipseos in interpretatione libror. 
sacror. Comment. I-XI. Lips. 1800-1808. 4to. (Comm. I-VI. have been reprinted in 
Pott, Sylloge commentt. theol. IV. 107 sqq.; VIE. 52sqq.; VIII. 1 sqq.), an uncritical 
collection. Cf. besides, Bauer, Philol. Thucyd. Paull. 162 sqq. ; Bloch, on the Ellipses 
in Paul’s Epistles, in his Theologian Part I. (Odensee 1791). 

8 Lamb. Bos, Ellipses graecae. Franecq. 1712. 8vo.; Traj. ad Rh. 1755. 8vo. ; ed. 
C. Schoettgen, 1718, 1728. 12mo.; ed. J. Κ΄, Leisner, Lips. 1749, 1767. 8vo.; ed 
N. Schwebel, Norimb. 1763; ο. nott. C. B. Michaelis, Hal. 1765. 8vo.; ὁ. prior. editor. 
suisq. observatt. ed. G. H. Schaefer, Lips. 1808. 8vo. (reprinted at Oxford 1813. 8vo.), 
ef. Fischer, Weller. IIL. I. 119 sqq-; ILI. IL. 29 sqq. 


§ 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 581 


rected, and sound views established, by Herm. de ellipsi et pleo- 
nasmo in Wolf and Buttmann’s Mus. antiq. studior. Vol. 1. fase. 1. 
pp. 97-235, and in Herm. Opusce. I. 148-244, and especially in his 
notes on Vig. 869 sqq.! We shall mainly follow him in this dis- 513 
cussion, which, however, is primarily intended merely to lay down 6th of, 
the various classes of ellipses, since Glassius and ~Haab have 
already accumulated examples in great abundance.” 

1. Ellipsis (not including Aposiopesis, to be treated under No. 
II) consists in the omission of a word the meaning of which must 
be supplied in thought (in order to complete the sentence).? The 
omission of such a word (whether out of convenience or an effort 
to be concise)‘ is allowable only when, in what is uttered, an 604 
indubitable intimation of the omitted word is given (Hm. opuse. 
p. 218), either by means of the particular structure of the sentence 541 
or by virtue of a conventional usage. In accordance with the Ith ed. 
three constituent parts of every simple sentence, such omissions 
may be arranged under the three main classes of Ellipses of the 
Subject, of the Predicate, and of the Copula (Hm. Vig. 870 sq.). 
A real i.e. entire ellipsis of the predicate, however, does not, and 
probably cannot, occur (Hm. Vig. 872), since the possible predi- 
cates are too various for the speaker to leave this part of his 
sentence to be supplied by the reader. Accordingly there remain 
but the other two sorts of ellipses, and those of the subject are 
naturally the more limited. 


The case in which a word or phrase of a preceding clause must be 
repeated in a subsequent connected clause, either unchanged or altered to 
suit the construction (Glass. I. 632 sqq.), cannot be called an ellipsis, there 
being here no actual omission of the word (Hm. Vig. 869 ; Opuse. 151 
sq.; Poppo, Thue. I. I. 282).6 Examples: 


1 Ellipsis in Latin is diseussed by J. W. Schilickeisen, de formis linguae latinae 
ellipticis. Miihlhausen, 1830 and 43. two Pr. 4to. An earlier work of J. G. Lindner on 
Latin Ellipses (Frkft. a. M. 1780. 8vo.) is of little value even as a collection of examples. 

2 How much the books of Scripture have been compelled to suffer from expositors 
in the matter of Ellipsis Hm. Opuse. p..217 intimates, when he terms these books, 
cereos flecti quorundam artibus. 

3 Hm. opusc. p. 153: ellipseos propria est ratio grammatica, quae posita est in eo, 
ut oratio, etiamsi aliquid omissum sit, integra esse censeatur, quia id, quod omissum 
est, necessario tamen intelligi debeat, ut quo non intellecto sententia nulla futura sit. 

4 The omission of a word may also sometimes arise entirely or partly from a rhetor- 
ical cause. See below, no. 3. 

5 Neither of these can, for instance, be shown by those expositors who, to get over 
the historical difficulty in Jno. xviii. 31, would supply hoe die (festo) in connection with 
ἡμῖν οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἀποκτεῖναι οὐδένα. 

6 It must not be overlooked that this mode of expression gives style greater periodic 


582 § 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


a. 2 Cor. i. 6 εἴτε θλιβόμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν σωτηρίας sc. θλιβόμεθα (ν. 18 ; 
vii. 12) ; Luke xxii. 86 ὁ ἔχων βαλλάντιον, ἀράτω ... ὃ μὴ ἔχων sc. βαλλάντιον 
(x. πήραν), Jas. ii. 10; Jno. iv. 26; xii. 28 δόξασον σοῦ τὸ ὄνομα .... καὶ 
ἐδόξασα καὶ πάλιν δοξάσω sc. τὸ ὄνομά pov. Cf. also Rom, iii. 27 ; viii. 4; 
xi. 6; xiii. 1 (ai δὲ οὖσαι se. ἐξουσίαι, which but few authorities add),’ Jno. 
iv. 53; Acts xxiii.34; 1 Cor, vii. ὃ f.; xi. 25 (cf. vs. 23); xv. 27; 2 Cor. 
xi. 11; Rey.ii.9. So especially in answers: Jno. xviii. 5 τίνα fyretre;... 

514 Ἰησοῦν τὸν ΝΝαζωραῖον, vs. 7; Luke xx. 24 τίνος ἔχει εἰκόνα καὶ ἐπιγραφήν ; 

bth el. ἀποκριθέντες εἶπον " Καίσαρος, vii. 43 ; Matt. xxvii. 21 ; Heb. v. 4 οὐχ ἑαυτῷ 
τις λαμβάνει τὴν τιμήν, ἀλλὰ καλούμενος ὑπὸ τ. θεοῦ sc. λαμβάνει τ. τιμ. (but 
λαμβ. in the sense of receive). 

605  b. Mark xiv. 29 εἰ πάντες σκανδαλισθήσονται, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐγώ (σκανδαλισθή- 
σομαι, cf. Matt. xxvi. 33); Eph. v. 24 ὥςπερ ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῷ 
Χριστῷ, οὕτω ... αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἀνδράσιν (ὑποτασσέσθωσαν) ; 2 Tim. i. 5 
ἥτις ἐνῴκησεν ἐν τῇ μάμμῃ cov... πέπεισμαι δέ, ὅτι καὶ ἐν σοί (ἐνοικεῖ) ; Rom. 
xi. 16 εἰ ἡ ἀπαρχὴ ἁγία, καὶ τὸ φύραμα (ἅγιον) ; Heb. v. ὃ ὁ Xp. οὐχ ἑαυτὸν 
ἐδόξασεν ... ἀλλ᾽ ὃ λαλήσας πρὸς αὐτὸν (ἐδόξ. αὐτόν) ; 1 Cor. xi. 1 μιμηταί 

542 μου γίνεσθε, καθὼς κἀγὼ Χριστοῦ (μιμητής εἰμι) ; xiv. 27 εἴτε γλώσσῃ τις 

Ἰὰ οἱ. λαλεῖ, κατὰ δύο ἢ τὸ πλεῖστον τρεῖς (λαλείτωσαν), cf. 1 Pet. iv. 11; Luke 
xxiii. 41 ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ κρίματι εἶ - καὶ ἡμεῖς μὲν δικαίως (ἐσμέν se. ἐν τῷ κρίματι 
τούτῳ) ; 1 Cor. ix. 12, 25; xi. 16; 2 Cor. ili. 18 καὶ οὐ καθάπερ Μωῦσῆς 
ἐτίθει κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὸ πρόςωπον ἑαυτοῦ (τίθεμεν Kad. ἐπὶ τὸ mp. ἡμῶν),2 cf. 
besides Matt. xx. 28 ; xxvi. 5; Jno. xiii. 9; χυ. 4, ὅ ; xvii. 22; xviii. 40; 
Rom. i. 21; ix. 82; xiv. 23; Phil. ii. 5; iii. 4; Heb. (ii. 13) v. 5; 
x. 25; xii. 25; Rev. xix.10; Matt. xxv. 9. Under this head comes also 
1 Cor. vii. 21 δοῦλος ἐκλήθης, μή σοι μελέτω, if, as is most natural, τῆς 
δουλείας be supplied (Lob. paralip. p. 314); see Meyer, who has overlooked 
the fact that even in my fifth edition 1 made this suggestion. The greatest 
accumulation of such indispensable repetitions occurs in Rom. xii. 6 ff. 

c. Neither is there any real ellipsis when an affirmative word is to be 
supplied from a foregoing negative, — a case of frequent occurrence in 
Greek authors (e.g. Thuc. 2, 98, 3 πορευομένῳ αὐτῷ ἀπεγίγνετο μὲν οὐδὲν 


compactness; whereas the repetition of the same or a similar expression would in 
most cases be very heavy. 

11 Jno. iii. 20 also would, according to Liicke’s exposition, come under this head, as 
γινώσκομεν (οἴδαμεν) is supplied before the second ὅτι, vs.19. I confess, however, that 
to me this explanation seems very forced. Why might nota transcriber have added, 
from inadvertence, a second ὅτι ὁ Lchm. has with A rejected the second ὅτι. But it 
may just as well have been omitted because it was not understood. Or why may not 
the author himself have repeated the ὅτι, as in Eph. ii. 11 f.? see Fr. Progr. ad Gal. 
p- 5 (Fritzschiorum opuse. p. 236). The passage has never yet been satisfactorily 
explained. 

2 This case, in which the verb is construed, not with the principal subject, but with 
the subject of the secondary clause, may be regarded as a sort of attraction, see Kriiger, 
gramm. Untersuch. III. 72, who at the same time adduces many similar examples, as 
Xen. C. 4,1, 3; Thue. 1, 82; 3, 67. 


a 


§ 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 583 


τοῦ στρατοῦ εἰ μή τὶ νόσῳ, προςεγίγνετο δέ, see Stallb. Plat. apol. p. 785 

sympos. p. 80, and Euthyd. p. 158; Maetzner, Antiph. p. 176, on the Lat. 

ef. Bremi, Nep. p. 345; Kritz, Sallust. II. 573); as, 1 Cor. vii. 19 ἡ 

περιτομὴ οὐδέν ἐστι, ἀλλὰ τήρησις ἐντολῶν θεοῦ (ἐστί τι Or τὰ πάντα ἐστῶ), 

iii. 7; 1 Cor. x. 34 μηδεὶς τὸ ἑαυτοῦ ζητείτω, ἀλλὰ τὸ τοῦ ἑτέρου 56. ἕκαστος. 

Otherwise in Eph. iv. 29; 1 Cor.iii.1. Frugality of expression is carried 

still farther in Mark xii. 5 καὶ πολλοὺς ἄλλους, τοὺς μὲν δέροντες, τοὺς δὲ 

ἀποκτείνοντες, where from these two Participles a finite verb is to be 

borrowed that combines both verbal notions, — such as maltreat (cf. Fr. 

in loc.). Also in Rom. xiv. 21 καλὸν τὸ μὴ φαγεῖν κρέα μηδὲ πιεῖν οἶνον, 

μηδὲ ἐν ᾧ ὁ ἀδελφός σου προςκόπτει etc., after the second μηδέ, the general 

word ποιεῖν (Aristot. Nicom. 8, 18, 6), or such an expression as make use 

of, is probably to be supplied. As to Phil. ii. 8 see below, p. 587 (Lob. 

paralip. p. 382). In Heb. x. 6, 8 ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας οὐκ 

εὐδόκησας the general notion θυσίας is to be educed from ὅλοκ. for περὶ ép., 

as in Heb. x. 38 the general term ἄνθρωπος is to be gathered from δίκαιος 

(cf. Kiihner II. 37). In Rev. vi. 4 we must abstract from Aaf. τ. dp. ἐκ 

τῆς γῆς the concrete of κατοικοῦντες ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς as a subject for σφάξουσι: 

Yet here, too, the omission is but partial. (For examples of all the 515 

preceding cases from Latin, see Lindner, lat. Ellips. S. 240 ff.) At the 6th ed 

same time, in all these cases the incompleteness of the sentence (viewed 

grammatically and logically) renders it obviously necessary to supply 606 

something. This is not the case in Jno. viii. 15 ὑμεῖς κατὰ τὴν σάρκα 

κρίνετε, ἐγὼ οὐ κρίνω οὐδένα, where on the contrary the second clause is so 

concluded by οὐδένα that nothing whatever requires to be supplied: ye 

judge according to the flesh, but I judge no one (not merely, no one 

according to the flesh, but absolutely no one). To supply xara τὴν σάρκα 543 

from the foregoing clause could only be justified by incongruity in the ἴμ a. 

sense without such addition. This, however, I am as unable to discover 

as Olshausen and Liicke. On the meaning, see especially BCrus. in 106. 
After εἰ δὲ μή or εἰ δὲ μή γε (Matt. vi. 1; Luke x. 6; xiii. 9; 2 Cor. 

xi. 16 etc.; cf. Plat. Gorg. ὅ08 ο.; Phaed. 68 ο.; Hoogeveen, partic. 

gr. I, 345 sq.), and after the expression (current with Paul) od μόνον 

δέ (... ἀλλὰ καί), it is peculiarly common to supply a preceding word 

or phrase; as, Rom. v. 3 οὐ μόνον δέ (sc. καυχώμεθα ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι τῆς δόξης 

vs. 2), ἀλλὰ καὶ καυχώμεθα etc., v. 11 καταλλαγέντες σωθησόμεθα ... οὐ 

μόνον δέ (καταλλαγέντες σωθησ.), ἀλλὰ καὶ καυχώμενοι, viii. 23; 2 Cor. 

viii. 19. Τὴ Rom. ix. 10 οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ῥεβέκκα etc. something to 

be gathered from a more distant part of the context appears to be wanting. 

It is easiest to supply it from vs. 9; cf. vs. 12: and (not only) Sarah 

received a divine promise respecting her son, but also Rebecca, who was 

yet the mother of two legitimate sons, etc. In Greek ef. Diog. L. 9, 39 

πεντακοσίοις ταλάντοις τιμηθῆναι, μὴ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ Kal χαλκαῖς εἰκόσι. 

Lucian. vit. auct. 7 οὐ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἢν θυρωρεῖν αὐτὸν ἐπιστήσῃς, πολὺ 


584 § 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


πιστοτέρῳ χρήσῃ τῶν κυνῶν, Toxar. 1 (Kypke, obs. II. 165; Hoogeveen, 
partic. II. 956). Analogous is the expression od μόνον ye... ἀλλά used 
by earlier authors, e.g. Plat. Phaed. 107 Ὁ. οὐ μόνον γ᾽, ἔφη 6 Σωκράτης (se. 
ἀπιστίαν σε δεῖ ἔχειν περὶ τῶν εἰρημένων), ἀλλὰ ταῦτά τε εὖ λέγεις etc., Meno 
71 b.; legg. 6, 752 ete., see Heind. and Stallb. Plat. Phaed. as above. 
The clause after οὐ μόνον δέ is (by repetition) expressed in 2 Cor. vii. 7. 
Also the use of κἄν, in the sense of vel certe (Vig. 527; Boisson. Philostr. 
epp- p- 97), is referable to an omission, e.g. Mark vi. 56 ἵνα κἂν τοῦ 
κρασπέδου ... ἅψωνται (properly iva ἅψωνται αὐτοῦ, κἂν τοῦ κρασπέδου 
ἅψωνται), 2 Cor. xi. 16, as also εἰ καί in 2 Cor. vii. 8 cf. Bengel in loc. 

Still less is it to be considered as an ellipsis when, in one and the same 
principal clause, a word used only once is to be supplied twice (in different 
phrases) : Acts xvii. 2 κατὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς τῷ Παύλῳ εἰςῆλθε πρὸς αὐτούς (ΤΙαῦλος), 
ΧΙ, 8 ἐπιθέντες τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῖς ἀπέλυσαν (αὐτούς). In Rom. ii. 28 οὐχ ὃ 
ἐν τῷ φανερῷ Ἰουδαῖός ἐστιν οὐδὲ ἡ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ περιτομή the predicative 
Ἰουδαῖος and περιτομή must be supplied also to the subject ὁ ἐν τῷ dav. 
Cf. further Acts viii. 7. 

607 Note. It may sometimes happen that a word is to be supplied in the 
preceding from the subsequent context (Hm. opusc. 151; Jacob, Lucian. 
Alex. p. 109; Lindner, lat. Ellips. 5. 251 ff.), ef. 1 Cor. vii. 89. But in 

516 Rom. ν. 16 to supply παραπτώματος after ἐξ ἑνός from ἐκ τῶν πολλῶν παρα- 

bth et. πτωμάτων may now be regarded as out of date, see Philippi in loc. And 
in 2 Cor. viii. 5 ἔδωκαν serves, as usual, also for the clause beginning with 
καὶ ov, only with the latter it must be taken absolutely: and they did not 
give as (in extent) we hoped, but their own selves gave they etc. Only in 
Mark xy. 8 ἤρξατο αἰτεῖσθαι καθὼς ἀεὶ ἐποίει αὐτοῖς it may seem as if it 
were necessary to supply ποιεῖν after αἰτεῖσθαι, from ἐποίει ; but the words 

544 properly run: to entreat according as he always did for them, from which 

ith ol. the object of request may be gathered, but not grammatically supplied. 
As to Eph. iv. 26, however, where some would supply μή from the second 
member also in the first, see p. 311. 


2. The most frequent real omission is that of the simple copula 
εἶναι : 

a. In the form ἐστί, more rarely in the form ἢ (yet cf. Stallb. 
Plat. rep. I. 133), because it is obviously seals by the juxta- 
position of subject and predicate (Rost 473 f.; Krii. 240 f.; cf. 
Wannowski, syntax. anom. p. 210 sq.) Heb. v. 18 πᾶς ὁ μετέχων 
γάλακτος ἄπειρος (ἐστὶ) λόγου δικαιοσύνης, ix. 16; x. 4,18; xi. 19; 
Mark xiv. 86; Rom. xi. 16; xiv. 21; 2 Cor. i. 21; Phil. iv. 3; 
Eph. i. 18; iv.4; v.17; 2 Thess. iii. 2; 1 Pet. iv. 17, particularly 
in questions Luke iv. 36; Acts x. 21; Rom. iii. 1; viii. 27, 31; 

~ 2 Cor. ii. 16; vi. 14; Rev. xiii. 4; Heb. vi. 8 (ef. Kritz, Sallust. 
I. 251) and RENN eg Acts xix. 28, 34 μεγάλη ἡ "Αρτεμις 


§ θά. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 585 


᾿Εφεσίων, but especially in certain set forms of expression Jas. 
i. 12 μακάριος ἀνήρ, ὅς etc. (Matt. v. 3, 5-10; xiii. 16 ; Luke i. 45; 
Rom. iv. 8; xiv. 22; Rev. xvi. 15; cf. 1 Pet. iv. 14), δῆλον ὅτι 
1 Cor. xv. 27; 1 Tim. vi. 7, avayen with Infin. Heb. ix. 16, 23; 
Rom. xiii. 5, πιστὸς ὁ θεός 1 Cor. i. 9; x. 13; 2 Cor. i. 18 or 
πιστὸς ὁ λόγος 1 Tim. i. 15; iii. 1; 2 Tim. 11. 11, ὁ. κύριος ἐγγύς 
Phil. iv. δ, ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τ. τροφῆς Matt. x. 10; 1 Tim. v. 18 
οἵ, Rev. v. 2, ἔτε μικρόν Jno. xiv. 19, μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον Heb. x. 37, 
εἰ δυνατόν Matt. xxiv. 24; Rom. xii. 18; Gal. iv. 15, ὥρα with 
Infin. Rom. xiii. 11 (Plat. ap. p. 42), τέ yap Phil. i. 18; Rom. iii. 8, 
τί οὖν Rom. iii. 9; vi. 15, τέ ἐμοὶ x. σοί Mark v. 7; i. 24; Luke 
viii. 28; Jno. ii. 4 (Her. 5, 88 ; Demosth. aphob. 564 b.; Arrian. 
Epict. 1, 1,16; 2,19,16), τέ τὸ ὄφελος 1 Cor. xv. 32; Jas. ii. 14, 
16, ᾧ ὄνομα or ὄνομα αὐτῷ, where the name follows, Luke ii. 25 ; 
Jno. i. 6; iii. 1, ete. (Demosth. Zenoth. p. 576 b.), cf. besides Acts 
xiii. 11; ii. 29. In the latter, as in the former, brevity and com- 
pactness are in place, cf. Vig. p. 236.1 The Subjunctive 7 is to 608 
be supplied after ἵνα in (Rom. iv. 16) 2 Cor. viii. 11, 18. 

b. More rarely is the substantive verb omitted in other forms : 
as εἰμί 2 Cor. xi. 6 εἰ δὲ καὶ ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ GAN οὐ TH γνώσει 
(λογίζομαι μηδὲν ὑστερηκέναι τῶν ὑπερλίαν ἀποστόλων precedes), 
εἰσί Rom. iv. 14; xi. 16; 1 Cor. xiii. 8; i. 26 (see Mey.); Rev. 
xxii. 15; Heb. ii. 11 (Schaef. melet. p. 43.sq.), ἐσμέν Rom. viii. 17; 517 
2 Oor. x. 7; Phil. iii. 15 (Plin. epp. 6, 16), εἶ Rev. xv. 4 (Plat. ‘th ed 
Gorg. 487 d.), ἔστω Rom. xii. 9; Col. iv. 6; Heb. xiii. 4, 5 (Fr. 
Rom. III. 65) also after χάρις τῷ θεῷ Rom. vi. 17 ; 2 Cor. viii. 16 ; 
ix. 15 (Xen. A. 3, 3, 14), εἴη in wishes Rom. i. 7; xv. 33; Jno. 
xx. 19, 21, 26; Matt..xxi. 9; Luke i. 28; Tit. iii. 15. Two dif- 
ferent forms of this verb are omitted at the same time in Jno. 
xiv. 11 ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί, xvii. 23. In 545 
narration the Aorist also is suppressed, e.g. 1 Cor. xvi. 9 (Xen, Med 
An. 1, 2,18; Cyr. 1, 6,6; Thue. 1, 138, etc.). On the Future 
see p. 586. In all cases in the simple diction of the N. T. it is 
easy (in Greek authors it is frequently more difficult, see Schaef. 
melet. p. 43.sq. 114) to perceive from the connection what words 
are to be supplied. Hitherto, however, expositors have been very 
lavish of their ellipses of the substantive verb, and have in par- 


1 Under this head comes also the phrase τί (ἐστι) ὅτι Mark ii. 16; Acts v. 4 (Bar. 
iii. 10) ; Fr. Mr. p. 60. 
2 More simply in Mark xii. 26 Sept. ἐγὼ ὁ θεὸς ᾿Αβραάμ Acts vii. 32. Also 2 Cor. 
viii. 23. Cf. Soph. Antig. 634. 
74 


586 § 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


ticular transformed in this way a multitude of Participles into 
finite verbs, cf. § 45, 6 p. 350. 


Likewise the Imperative plural ἐστέ! is, according to the whole tone 
of the sentence, omitted in passages such as Rom. xii. 9 (1 Pet. iii. 8) ; 
and to explain the Participle ἀποστυγοῦντες by an anacoluthon is unneces 
sary. With εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεός etc. Rom. ix. 5; 2 Cor. i. 3; Eph. i. 3 
we must supply, not ἐστί (Fr. Rom. I. 75), but (cf. 1 Kings x. 9; Jobi. 21) 
εἴη or ἔστω. 

Likewise, where ἐστί etc. is more than a mere copula, where it denotes 
existence, permanence, it is sometimes wanting (Rost 474) 1 Cor. xy. 21 
δι᾿ ἀνθρώπου ὃ θάνατος (exists) vs. 40; Rom. iv. 13. 


It is thus sufficient to supply εἶναν or γίνεσθαι even in most of 
those passages where an oblique case or a preposition seems to 
require a more definite verb; as, 1 Cor. vi. 13 τὰ βρώματα τῇ 
κοιλίᾳ καὶ ἡ κοιλία τοῖς βρώμασι. Acts x. 15 φωνὴ πάλιν ἐκ δευτέρου 

609 πρὸς αὐτόν (ἐγένετο, οἵ. vs. 13), Matt. iii. 11 (Jno. xii. 28 ἦλθεν 
gory)? 1 Cor. iv. 20 οὐκ ἐν λόγῳ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, GAN ἐν 
δυνάμει (cf. ii. 5), Rom. x. 1 ; xi. 11 ; 2 Cor. iv. 15; viii. 18 (Mey.), 
1 Pet. iii. 12; Heb. vii. 20. The preposition or case suggests the 
particular verbal notion to be supplied: (whose final doom) leads 
to burning, ts destined for, resulis in, etc. As in the last passage 
ἐγένετο is obviously sufficient, so in the first and second, in accord- 
ance with the simplicity of the style, nothing more than ἐστέ is to 
be supplied. The same applies to 1 Cor. v. 12 τί γάρ μοι καὶ τοὺς 

518 ἔξω κρίνειν ; (Arrian. Epict. 2,17, 14 τί μοι viv τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους 

hel. μάχην παραφέρειν ; 4, 6,33) and Jno. xxi. 22 τί πρός ce; (see 
Hm. opuse. p. 157 sq. 169; Bos, ellips. p. 598; cf. the Latin hoc 
nihil ad me, quid hoc ad me, Kritz, Sallust. II. 146). Also in 

546 Jno. xxi. 21 οὗτος δὲ τί; ἔσταν (γενήσεται) is sufficient. The 

Τὰ οἱ, connection points toa Future. Cf. 1 Pet. iv.17. Lastly, under 
this head comes the expression iva τί sc. γένηται or γένοιτο, Hm. 
Vig. 849. 


1 Mey. thinks that ἐστέ is to be supplied also in Eph. i. 13 after ἐν ᾧ. But this ἐν ᾧ 
seems rather to be taken up again after the clause ἀκούσαντες etc. in the second ἐν ᾧ. 
For εἶναι ἐν Χριστῷ can hardly be introduced between ἀκούσαντεβ and πιστεύσαντες. : 

2 What is suppressed is always that which is the most simple ; and although here 
and there in a phrase elsewhere elliptical a writer inserts a specific verb, it does not 
follow that this very verb is the verb to be supplied. Thus Antipater, in the Greek 
Anthology, says: ef τί τοι ἐκ βίβλων ἦλθεν ἐμῶν ὄφελος. Yet we must not on that 
account, with Palairet p. 415, supply ἦλθε in the phrase τί μοι τὸ ὄφελος, but merely 
the simple ἐστί. In the same way, in Lucian. mere. cond. 25 we find τί κοινὸν λύρᾳ 
καὶ ὄνῳ ; but it does not follow from this that κοινόν must be supplied in the phrase τί 
ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί ; see Fr. Mr. p. 33. 


§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 587 


Verbs which express the predicate (or a part of it) as well as 
the copula (Hm. p. 156 sq.) can be suppressed only when some 
intimation of them is given in the structure of the sentence (Bar. 
iv. 1). Cf. the familiar phrases Twelve for a dollar, manum de 
tabula, haec hactenus, ete. Thus in Acts ix. 6 rec. ὁ κύριος πρὸς 
αὐτόν it is easy to supply εἶπε (vs. 15), which is suggested in πρὸς 
αὐτόν, as in ii. 88; xxv. 22 (Aelian. 1, 16 var.).!| In Rom. iv. 9 
ὁ μακαρισμὸς οὗτος ἐπὶ τὴν περιτομὴν ἢ Kai ἐπὶ ἀκροβυστίαν ; the 
meaning is obviously : does it have reference to etc. ; yet we must 


supply, not aire with Theophylact, but rather λέγεται (Fr. in ᾿ 


loc.), ef. vs. 6 (λέγειν εἴς twa Eurip. Iphig. ΤΊ 1180). Acts 
XViii. 6 τὸ αἷμα ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν ὑμῶν, Matt. xxvii. 25 τὸ 
αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς (2 Sam. i. 16; Plato, Euthyd. 288 6.) se. 
ἐλθέτω οἵ. Matt. xxiii. 35 (though ἔστω is sufficient)? In Rom. 
v. 18 ὡς 80 ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα 
supply ἀπέβη impersonal: res cessit, abiit in etc., and in the fol- 
lowing οὕτω καὶ Sv ἑνὸς δικαιώματος eis πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς 
δικαίωσιν ζωῆς, (according to vs. 19) ἀποβήσεται (Fr.), or rather 
ἀπέβη also (Mey.). In 2 Cor. ix. 7 ἕκαστος, καθὼς προήρηται τῇ 
καρδίᾳ, μὴ ἐκ λύπης, supply δότω, suggested by the whole context. 
In Luke xxii. 26 ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως, the word ποιήσετε, inferred 
from κυριεύουσιν etc., is most naturally to be supplied; perhaps 
even ἔσεσθε might suffice. But in Phil. ii, 3 with μηδὲν κατὰ 
ἐρίθειαν it is enough to repeat φρονοῦντες. In Gal. ii. 9 δεξιὰς 
ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ BapvaBa κοινωνίας, iva ἡμεῖς μὲν εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, αὐτοὶ 
δὲ εἰς τὴν περιτομήν, since the passage relates to preachers of the 
gospel, we may readily supply εὐωαγγελιζώμεθα, εὐωγγελίζωνται 
(2 Cor. x. 16, like κηρύττειν εἴς twa 1 Thess. ii. 9), and not with 
Fr. and Mey. the less significant πορευθῶμεν, πορευθῶσιν etc. In 
Rey. vi. 6 the complement of the cry, χοῖνιξ σίτου δηναρίου καὶ 
τρεῖς χοίνικες κριθῶν Snvapiov a measure of wheat for a denarion! 
is as obviously suggested by the Genitive of price (p. 206), as in 
similar forms of expression with us. As to the epistolary forms 
of salutation in Rev. i. 4 ᾿Ιωάννης ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ 


010 


᾿Ασίᾳ, Phil. i. 1 Παῦλος πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις... τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις 519 


1 This ellipsis has a wide range in Greek and Latin, e.g. Charit. 6, 1 ταῦτα μὲν οὖν 
οἱ ἄνδρες, Val. Flacc. 5, 254 vir ea. Cf. also Cic. N. D. 2, 4,11 augures rem ad 
Senatum, and many similar instances especially in the epistolary style, Cic. fam. 4, 8 ; 
7,9; Attic. 15, 8 and 17; 16, 9, particularly ad Attic. 

2 In Greek authors also, when similar imprecations occur, e.g. és κεφαλήν σοι Aristoph. 
pac. 1063, τραπέσθω is usually supplied (see Bos p. 657 sq.), agreeably to Mosch. 4, 
123 ; Phalar. ep. 128. 3 


6th ed, 


588 | § 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


5AT 50. χαίρειν λέγει, or Acts xxiii. 26 KX. Avolas τῷ κρατίστῳ ἡγεμόνι 
th ed. Φήλικι χαίρειν sc. λέγει, xv. 23; Jas. i. 1, see Fr. Rom. I. 22. 


In the proverb 2 Pet. ii. 22 fs λουσαμένη εἰς κύλισμα βορβόρου, the 
requisite verb is implied in εἰς, and ἐπιστρέψασα may easily be supplied, 
conformably to what precedes. But it is precisely in proverbs, where 
brevity of expression is necessary, that specific verbs are (by conventional 
usage) suppressed, cf. γλαῦκ᾽ εἰς ᾿Αθήνας, fortuna fortes, and Bhdy. p. 351. 
Grotefend, ausf. lat..Gramm. 11. 397 f.; Zumpt, lat. Gramm. p. 610. 


3. The subject is wholly wanting (Κατὰ. 232) only, 

a. When it is self-evident; because the predicate, owing to the 
nature of the case or to conventional usage, can refer to but one 
(definite) subject, e.g. βροντᾷ (ὁ Ζεύς), σαλπίζει (ὁ σαλπυγκτής), 
ἀναγνώσεται (Demosth. Mid. 886 b.) se. scriba, see above, ὃ 58, 
9 p. 521 sq. From Jewish phraseology may be included under 
this head the formulas of quotation λέγει Heb. i. 7, εἴρηκε iv. 4, 
φησί viii. 5 (vii. 17 rec. μαρτυρεῖ), see above, ὃ 58, 9 p. 522. As 
to Heb. xiii. 5 see Bleek. 

b. When an expression is introduced the subject of which is 
at once supplied by every reader’s knowledge or memory ; as, Jno. 
vi. 81 ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς φαγεῖν sc. ὁ θεός, 2 Cor. 
ix. 9 (Ps. cxii. 9); 1 Cor. xv. 27 (but in vs. 25 the subject is 

611 Χριστός), Col. i. 19; Jno. xii. 40; xv. 25; Rom. ix. 18f.; see 
v. Hengel, Cor. p. 120sq. As to Jno. vii. 51 see p. 523. On 
1 Tim. iii. 16 see a few lines below; and as to Matt. v. 38 see 
below, no. 6 Remark, p. 598.1 


Nothing is omitted when the third person Plur. is used impersonally, 
as in Jno. xx. 2 ἦραν τὸν κύριον ἐκ τοῦ μνημείου (cf. § 58, 9 p. 522) ; for the 
general subject, people or men, is properly speaking already contained in 
the person. See also Luke xii. 20 and Bornem. in loc. The same applies 
to the Gen. Absolute, as in Luke viii. 20 ἀπηγγέλη αὐτῷ λεγόντων ie. 
they saying, cf. 1 Kings xii. 9; 1 Chron. xvii. 24; Thue. 1, 3; Xen. C. 3, 
3,54; Diog. L. 6, 32; Doederlein, Soph. Oedip. Col. p. 393; Valcken. 
Herod. p. 414; Schaef. Demosth. V. 301. 

In 1 Tim. iii. 16, according to the reading ὅς, the subject to the relative 
clauses that follow would be wanting, unless, with recent editors, we begin 
the apodosis with ἐδικ. But that is unadvisable on account of the paral- 
lelism. It is more likely that all these members are co-ordinate, and that 
the apostle took them from some hymn (as such were in use even in the 


1 Sometimes when the subject is omitted a rhetorical reason has influence, inasmuch 
as it is concealed out of disappointment and vexation. To this might perhaps be 
referred Rom. ix. 19 and 2 Pet. iii. 4 (see Gerhard). 


§ 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 589 


apostolic church), and suppressed the subject, familiar to every one, all 
the more readily because he was concerned here only with those predicates 
which involved the μυστήριον. (As to the simple αὐτός in reference to a 548 
well-known subject, see § 22, 3 p. 146.) On 1 Cor. vii. 36, see § 67, 1. Tth ed, 
Under a. come also Heb. xi. 12 διὸ καὶ ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς ἐγεννήθησαν, where the 520 
term children (descendants) is readily supplied, and indeed is already im- 6th ed 
plied in γεννᾶσθαι (cf. Gen. x.21); and Rom. ix. 11 μήπω yap γεννηθέντων 
μηδὲ πραξάντων, where, moreover, the notion of τέκνων or υἱῶν is sufficiently 
intimated in Ῥεβέκκα ἐξ ἑνὸς κοίτην ἔχουσα etc. vs. 10. In Luke xvi. 4 
the subject is the debtors, cf. vs. 5. 
When the subject is not omitted, but has to be repeated from the context 
(not Heb. viii. 4), there is room sometimes for a difference of opinion, as 
in Rom. vii. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 25 (Heb. ix. 1). The decision in such cases 
is not grammatical, but hermeneutical. 


4. On the other hand, often but a part of the subject or of the 
predicate (if it consists of something besides the copula, see above, 
no. 2) is expressed, and the portion omitted is to be supplied from 
what is expressed in accordance with conventional usage; as, Acts 
xxi. 16 συνῆλθον καὶ τῶν μαθητῶν there came also at the same 
time (some, τινές.) of the disciples; with é« or ἀπό in Luke xi. 49 
ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποκτενοῦσι (Twas), Xxi. 16; Jno. xvi. 17; xxi. 10; vi. 39; 612 
Rey. ii. 10 (v. 9); xi. 9,1 cf. p. 203 ; Heindorf, Plat. Gorg. p. 148; 
Vic. Fritzsche, quaestion. Lucian. 201; Jno. iv. 35 ὅτι ἔτι τετράμηνός 
ἐστι (χρόνος), Xen. Hell. 2, 3, 9; Luke xii. 47 f. ἐκεῖνος ὁ δοῦλος 

. δαρήσεται πολλάς ... ὀλέγας ef. 2 Cor. xi. 24. The notion 
of stripes is implied in δέρειν ; accordingly πληγάς is readily sug- 
gested (and this elliptical phrase is of Requant occurrence in 
Greek authors, Xen. A. 5, 8,12 τοῦτον ἀνέκραγον ὡς ὀλίγας παίσειεν, 
Aclian. anim. 10, 21 μαστιγοῦσι πολλαῖς, Aristoph. nub. 971; 
Schol. ad Thuc. 2, 39 (οἱ πλείονας éveyxovtes), cf. Jacobs, Achill. 
Tat. p. 737; Ast, Plat. legg. p. 483; Valcken. ad Luc. Le., and 
something similar in Bos under αἴκισμα, (cf. also the German: er 
adhlte thm zwanzig auf, he counted him out twenty). 

The ellipsis is carried still further in 2 Cor. viii. 15 6 τὸ πολὺ 
οὐκ ἐπλεόνασε. καὶ ὁ TO OALyov οὐκ ἠλαττόνησε (from Exod. xvi. 18 
cf. vs. 17), where ἔχων may be supplied. Later writers employ 
this idiom (the Article with an Accusative) in various forms, e.g. 
Lucian. Catapl. 4 ὁ τὸ ξύλον, Bis Ace. 9 6 τὴν σύριγγα, dial. m. 
10, 4 (Bhdy. 119), and it has been as fully sanctioned by usage 
in their case as in the case of the phrases specified above. See 


1 Some have infelicitously applied this ellipsis to Jno. iii. 25. 


590 § 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


Bos, ellips. p. 166. Some expositors infelicitously apply it to Matt. 

iv. 15. In Rom. xiii. 7 ἀπόδοτε πᾶσι τὰς ὀφειλάς, τῷ τὸν φόρον, 

τὸν φόρον etc. the most natural ellipsis is ἀποδιδόναι κελεύοντι i.e. 

ἀπαιτοῦντι. In 1 Cor. iv. 6 ἵνα ἐν ἡμῖν μάθητε τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ 

γέγραπται, if we reject φρονεῖν as spurious, an Infin. is wanting 

(per ellipsin, not as Mey. maintains [in his earlier eds. ; but not 

so in the 4th.] per aposiopesin) ; it will be sufficient to supply the 

549 general expression: to go beyond what etc., to exalt yourselves. 

ithel. On the other hand, in 1 Cor. x. 13 ὑπὲρ ὃ δύνασθε nothing is to be 

supplied ; the verb is used absolutely, as posse often is in Latin. 

. Luther correctly renders the passage: iber ewer Vermégen, (above 
that ye are able). 


521 In 1 Pet. ii. 23 παρεδίδου τῷ κρίνοντι δικαίως some supply κρίσιν from 

6th ed. κρίνοντι, which in itself is not impossible; yet παρεδίδου probably is here, 
as often, to be taken reflexively : he committed himself (his cause) to him 
that judgeth righteously. There is no ellipsis whatever in Matt. xxiii. 9 
πατέρα μὴ καλέσητε ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, call not (any man) your father on the 
earth, i.e. do not employ on the earth, 1.6. among and of men, the appel- 
lation “our father;” and 1 Tim. v. 9 χήρα καταλεγέσθω μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν 
ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα etc. is: as a widow let no one be enrolled who is less than 

613 sixty years of age; widows entered on the list are, according to vs. 16, 
those who received support from the funds of the church. 


5. It is common, in particular, to omit substantives in certain 
fixed phrases or in special contexts, and to express their adjectives 
merely, which latter of themselves conduct the mind to the sub- 
stantives, cf. Bhdy. 183 ff. Examples: 

ἡ μέρα (Bos under the word) in the expressions, ἡ ἑβδόμη Heb. 
iv. 4 (of the Sabbath), ἕως or μέχρι τῆς σήμερον Matt. xxvii. 8 ; 
2 Cor. iii. 15 (2 Chron. xxxv. 25; Malal. 12, 309, generally in the 
Sept. and the N. T. ἡμέρας is added), ἡ αὔριον Jas. iv. 14; Matt. 
vi. 84; Acts iv. 8,5 (8 Mace. v. 38), ἡ ἑξῆς Acts xxi. 1; Luke 
aw» Vii. 11, τῇ ἐχομένῃ Luke xiii. 33; Acts xx. 15, τῇ ἐπιούσῃ Acts 
xvi. 11, τῇ ἑτέρᾳ (postridie) Acts xx. 15, τῇ τρίτῃ Luke xiii. 32 
(Xen. C. 5, 3, 27; Plut. paedag. 9, 26 τὴν μέσην réuvew).} 

ὁδός (Fischer as above, 259sq.; Lob. paralip. p. 363): Luke 
xix. 4 ἐκείνης ἤμελλε διέρχεσθαι, v. 19 μὴ εὑρόντες ποίας εἰςενέγκω- 
ow αὐτόν (Οἷο. Att. 9, 1 qua ituri sint, Cic. divin. 1, 54, 128). 


1In Acts xix. 38 ἀγόραιοι ἄγονται (Strab. 13, 629) most expositors supply ἡμέραι, 
which is quite appropriate. 

2 The local meaning of the Gen. that way (cf. Germ. des Wegs) is questioned by 
Bornem. Lue. p. 37, 118, who wants to read in the two passages ποίᾳ, ἐκείνῃ ; yet Hm. 


§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 591 


iii. 5 ἔσται τὰ σκολιὰ εἰς εὐθείας etc. (where, however, in the 
second member ὁδούς follows) cf. Lucian. dial. m. 10, 13 εὐθεῖαν 
ἐκείνην προϊόντες, Paus. 8, 23, 2, Lat. compendiaria ducere Senec. 
ep. 119, recta ire. 

ὕδωρ (Bos p. 501 syq.): Matt. x. 42 ὃς ἐὰν ποτίσῃ ... ποτήριον 550 
ψυχροῦ, Jas. iii. 11; Epict. ench. 29,2; Arrian. Hpict. 8, 12, 17 ith ed, 
and 15, 3; Lucian. mors Peregr. 44, just as we say: a@ glass of ae 
port, a bottle of sherry, ete. We find also θερμόν sc. ὕδωρ Aristoph. 614 
nub. 1040; Arrian. Epict. 8, 22,71, ete. So in Latin /rigida Plin. 
ep. 6, 16, calida Tac. Germ. 22, gelida Hor. serm. 2, 7, 91. 

ἱμάτιον (Bos p. 204sq.): Jno, xx. 12 θεωρεῖ δύο ἀγγέλους 
ἐν λευκοῖς καθεζομένους in white garments, Matt. xi. 8; Rev. 
xviii. 12,16; cf. Sept. Exod. xxxiii.4; Arrian. Epict. 3, 22, 10 
ἐν κοκκίνοις περιπατῶν and Wetst. I. 381, 958; Bos p. 204. 

yroooa: Rey. ix. 11 ἐν τῇ ἑλληνικῇ. 

αὔρα (Bos p. 49; ef. Lob. paralip. p. 314): Acts xxvii. 40 
ἐπάραντες τὸν ἀρτέμονα τῇ πνεούσῃ cf. Lucian. Hermot. 28, 
(similarly τῷ πνέοντι sc. ἀνέμῳ Lucian. Char. 3). 

χώρα (Bos p. 560 sqq.): ἐξ ἐναντίας ex adverso Mark xy. 39, 
which is used likewise in a figurative sense Tit. ii. 8. The same 
word is usually supplied in Luke xvii. 24 ἡ ἀστραπὴ ἡ ἀστράπτουσα 
ἐκ τῆς Um οὐρανὸν εἰς THY ὑπ᾽ οὐρᾳνὸν λάμπει (Sept. Job xviii. 4; 
Prov. viii. 28). ἡ ὀρεινή Luke i. 39 early became a substantive, 
the highlands, the hill country, Xen. Cyr. 1, 3,3; Ptol. Geogr. 
δ, 17, 3; 6, 9, 4. 

ὥρα time, is regarded as omitted in the phrase ἀφ᾽ ἧς 2 Pet. 


Vig. p. 881 found no fault with this local Gen. which became established in the Pro- 
nominal adverbs οὗ, rod. And many instances of this very phrase τῆς (αὐτῇς) ὁδοῦ 
(ef. Bhdy. 138) are cited, and that not merely from poets (Arii. Sprachl. IT. 2. 8. 157) ; 
ef. in particular, Thue. 4, 47, 2 and Krii. on the passage, and Thue. 4, 33,3. If any 
one wishes to bring this local Gen. nearer to the primary import of the Gen. (§ 30, 1), 
he may take it perhaps thus: out or forth from that (way). But probably it connects 
itself more simply with the use mentioned in § 30, 11 p. 207. 

1 Many adverbial expressions arose from an ellipsis of ὁδός (Bttm. ausf. Sprachl. 
II. 341) or χώρα (Bos p. 561), such as ἰδίᾳ, κατ᾽ ἰδίαν, δημοσίᾳ Acts xvi. 37 etc., which 
no longer suggest to the mind their origin, Bhdy. 185 f. Such an adverbial expression 
also is ἀπὸ μιᾶς Luke xiv. 18, which cannot be discovered in the literary language of 
the Greeks, but was probably current in the language of conversation. It is equivalent 
to with one mind (ἐκ μιᾶς ψυχῆς Dion. H. II. 1058) or with one voice (uno ore, ἐκ μιᾷς 
φωνῆς Herod. 1,4,21). Wahl, clav. p. 45, after Camerar. is too artifical. It is possible, 
moreover, that the Greeks did not understand any substantive at all originally, but 
employed the Feminine (as an abstract, Ewald, Heb. Gr. 645), just as independently 
as the Neuter, see Schaef. Bos p. 43 and the Review in the L. Lit. Zeit. 1825. no. 179; 
this, however, Hm. opuse. p. 162 will not admit, 


§92 § θά, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


ili. 4; Luke vii. 45; Acts xxiv. 11, which, indeed, had already 
become completely an adverb (cf. however, Matt. xv. 28). . The 
same applies to ἐξ αὐτῆς Mark vi. 25; Acts x. 88 etc., which many 
write as one word, ἐξαυτῆς. 
δόμος (or οἶκος) Acts ii. 27, 81 εἰς ἅδου, cf. Bos p. 14 ; Vechner, 
Hellenol. p. 124 sq., but the best Codd. [Sin. also] give εἰς ἅδην. 
γῆ: Matt. xxiii. 15 ἡ ξηρά (opposed to ἡ θάλασσαν the continent, 
dry land (Kypke in loc.). The same substantive would have to 
be supplied in Heb. xi. 26 οἱ ἐν Αἰγύπτου θησαυροί (Lchm.). Cf. 
Her. 8,3; Diod.S. 12,34. But the reading of Αὐγύπτου θησαυροί 
[which Cod. Sin. also gives] is better supported. 
χείρ in ἡ δεξιά, ἡ ἀριστερά Matt. vi. 8 ete., δεξιὰν διδόναι Gal. 
ii. 9 (Xen. A. 1,6,6; 2,6, 8), ἐν δεξιᾷ, ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιάν Eph. i. 20; 
Matt. xxvii. 29. 
δραχμή: Acts xix. 19 εὗρον ἀργυρίου μυριάδας πέντε, as we 
say: he is worth ten thousand, Cf. Lucian. eun. 3 and 8; Achill. 
T.5,17. So also the names of measures are omitted Ruth iii. 15. 
ὑετός : Jas. v. μακροθυμῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ (καρπῷ), ἕως λάβῃ 
πρώϊμον καὶ ὄψιμον. 
The ellipsis in all these expressions has been sanctioned by long 
551 usage, and for that very reason is plain, especially in particular 
Τὰ ol. contexts, to all who are familiar with the language (cf. he put 
615 down red, he sat on the right, he came in a coach and six). Other 
omissions are more special (peculiar to the usus loquendi of ἃ 
city or community), e.g. προβατική (πύλη Neh. iii. 1) Jno. v. 2 
(just as they say in Leipsic, to go out at the Grimma), yet see 
Bos under the word πύλη. Such also are of δώδεκα, of ἑπτά 
(διάκονοι) Acts xxi. 8; ef. in Greek οἱ τριάκοντα (τύραννοι). 


523 To this head have been referred incorrectly many expressions and phrases 
6th el. in which an adjective or neuter pronoun is used independently without any 
ellipsis (Krii. S. 3), e.g. τὸ ἱερόν (which at an early period had become a 
substantive) the temple, τὸ διοπετές Acts xix. 35, τὸ σηρικόν Rev. xviii. 12, 
in biblical diction τὸ ἅγιον the holy place (in the tabernacle and the temple), 
τὸ ἱλαστήριον etc., τὰ ἴδια one’s own (possession) Jno. i. 11, τὰ σά what ἐξ 
thine Luke vi. 30, τὰ κατώτερα τῆς γῆς Eph. iv. 9 (where, however, good 
Codd. [Sin. also] add μέρη), τὸ τρίτον τῶν κτισμάτων Rev. viii. 9 etc., and 
the adverbial expressions ἐν παντί, εἰς κενόν, τὸ λοιπόν (δ 54,1). Likewise 
in Heb. xiii. 22 λόγων is not to be supplied after βραχέων, any more than 
verbis or the like is to be understood after paucis, or (in quotations) τόπῳ 
after ἐν ἑτέρῳ Acts xiii. 85; Heb. v.6. Also in 1 Cor. xv. 46 τὸ πνευματικόν 
and τὸ ψυχικόν are used as substantives, and σῶμα is not to be understood. 
Lastly, with ἐν τῷ μεταξύ Jno. iv. 81 χρόνῳ is not to be supplied, but τῷ 


§ 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 598 


μεταξύ is the Dat. of τὸ μεταξύ (Lucian. dial. ἃ. 10, 1). Even the Gen. 
of kindred, such as Sérarpos Πύῤῥου Acts xx. 4, Ἰούδας ᾿Ιακώβου, Ἐμμὸρ 
τοῦ Συχέμ. (8 30, 3), is not elliptical, but the Gen. expresses the general 
notion of belonging to, just as we say: Prussia’s Bliicher (Hm. opusc. 
p- 120; Kiihner 11.118). For instances from Greek and Roman authors, 
see Vechner, Hellenol. p. 122 sq.; Jani, ars poet. p.187sq. But even 
were vids, ἀδελφός, and the like, actually omitted in such expressions, it 
would still be a complete perversion to supply vids before the Genitive in 
Gal. iii. 20 ὃ δὲ μεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν, (Kaiser de apologet. ev. Joa. 
consiliis II. 8). A word can be omitted only when the notion it expresses 
is conveyed by the context, or may be presumed to be known to the 
reader. But when it is said: the mediator is not of one, the expression 
does not even remotely intimate that precisely the word son is to be sup- 
plied. The sentence by itself merely means: does not appertain to a 
single individual. And that he appertains to him as son (instead of what 
surely must be regarded as most obvious, in - very function of mediator) 
is left wholly to conjecture ! 


On the other hand, a number of (transitive) verbs have, in a 
similar way, rid themselves in the course of time of the case of the 
noun in union with which they formed a current phrase, and are 
now used all alone to express the same meaning, e.g. διώγειν to 
live (in an ethical sense) Tit. iii. 8, strictly, to spend sc. τὸν βίον 552 
1 Tim. ii. 2. So frequently in Greek authors, Xen. ©. 1, 2, 2; Met 
8, 3,50; Diod. S.1, 8. Similarly, διατρίβειν sojourn in a place 616 
Jno. ili. 22, strictly, spend sc. τὸν χρόνον, see Kiihnél in loc. Cf. 
in Latin agere, degere (Vechner, Hellenol. p.126f.). Συμβάλλειν 
τινί or πρός Twa Acts iv. 15; xvii. 18 to confer, consult with one, 
originally συμβάλλειν λόγους sermonem conferre Ceb. 33; by the 
older Greeks chiefly in the Mid. συμβάλλεσθαι. Προςέχειν τινί 
pay attention to etc., sc. τὸν νοῦν, cf. in Latin advertere, attendere. 
Similar is ἐπέχειν Luke xiv. 7; Actsiii.5. So perhaps also ἐνέχειν 
Mark vi. 19; Luke xi. 53, where, however, it is sometimes ex- 
plained to be angry, supplying χόλον (Her. 1, 118; 6, 119); but 
no instance can be found of the suppression of this Acc. Ἔπι- 524 
τιθέναι τινί (τὰς χεῖρας) Acts xviii. 10; cf. Xen. M. 2,1,15; Oyr. δ εἰ, 
6, 3, 6. Συλλαμβάνειν, concipere, to become pregnant Luke 
ol, Many verbs when used thus by themselves have become 
technical terms, as e.g. διακονεῖν Jno. xii. 2 to serve at table, προς- 
φέρειν Heb. v. 8 to offer, προςκυνεῖν to worship Ino. xii. 20; Acts 
viii. 27, λατρεύειν Phil. iii. 3; Luke ii. 37; Acts xxvi. 7, καλεῖν 
invite 1 Cor. x. 27 (Xen. Cyr. 2, 2,23; 8, 4,1), κρούειν knock 


(at a door) Matt. vii. 7 etc., προβάλλειν to put forth (of trees), a 
75 


594 § 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


horticultural term, Luke xxi. 30. Nautical terms are alpew weigh 
sc. τὰς ἀγκύρας Acts xxvii. 13 (Bos p. 15) Thue. 2, 23, like the 
Latin solvere Caes. gall. 4, 23, and κατέχειν eis Acts xxvii. 40, see 
Wahl under the word. 

We must, however, be careful not to refer to this head such 
verbs as either contain in themselves a complete notion, or in a 
given context are intended to express nothing more than the 
action which they denote, and are used absolutely, as ἐν γαστρὶ 
ἔχειν to be pregnant, διορύσσειν to break through, to break in Matt. 
vi. 19, στρωννύειν ἑαυτῷ sibi sternere Acts ix. 34 to make one’s bed, 
ἀποστέλλειν to send (personally or by letter) Luke vii. 19; Acts 
xix. 31 (Vechner, Hellenol. p. 126), μὴ ἔχειν to be poor 1 Cor. xi. 
22; Boisson. Philostr. epp. p. 128 (habere Jani, ars poét. p. 189), 
ἀγοράζειν καὶ πωλεῖν Rev. xiii. 17. [Just so in ἀποκτενεῖτε etc. 
Matt. xxiii. 34 the actions expressed are conceived absolutely ; 
see Mey. ad loc.] For examples of verbs used abstractly, see e.g. 
1 Cor. iii. 1; x. 18; Heb. xii. 25; Col. ii. 21; Phil. ii. 12; Jas. 
iv. 2f. As to πάσχειν in particular, see Wahl, clav. p. 387 ; ef. 
Weber, Demosth. p. 384. Also Luke ix. 52 ὥςτε ἑτοιμάσαι αὐτῷ 
is probably to be rendered: to prepare for him, what? appears 
from the context, and ξενίαν from Philem. 22 is not to be supplied. 
In the same way the verbs are used in 1 Cor. xi. 4 κατὰ κεφαλῆς 
ἔχων (cf. 2 Cor. v. 12) and Rev. xxii. 19 ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ τῶν 
λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου, where to supply τὸ betrays an utter want of 
philological discernment. Lastly δύνασθαι, used absolutely, sig- 
nifies to be able, have power, and does not require an Infin. to 
complete its sense, not even in 1 Cor. x. 18 (where δύν. ὑπενεγκεῖν 
follows immediately) cf. Rom. viii. 7; 1 Cor. ili. 2; 2 Cor. xiii. 8. 
558 (Substantives with the Article are also used thus technically in 
ith ed. doctrinal terminology, and with them a Gen. of the Person — 
617 θεοῦ ---- has been looked for ; as, ἡ ὀργή Rom. 111. 5; v.93; xii. 19; 

1 Thess. i. 10; ii. 16, τὸ θέλημα Rom. ii. 18.) 

Adjectives used attributively with substantives can be omitted only in 
very rare instances. It is quite conceivable, for example, that in the 
phrase λαλεῖν ἑτέραις or καιναῖς yAwooats the adjective was dropped through 
frequent use, and that γλωσσαῖς λαλεῖν alone became a technical expression 
(de Wette on Acts, 5. 33). But beyond the range of local and individual 
usage (somewhat like /ibri, namely Sibyllini, or bishop in partibus for in 
part. ¢nfidelium) nothing of this sort occurs; since, owing to the diversity 
of epithets that may be joined to a substantive, it would not do to leave 
the reader to guess the precise one to be supplied. In 2 Pet. ii. 10 ὀπίσω 
«σαρκὸς πορεύεσθαι does not need to be completed by ἑτέρας from Jude 7 ; 


§ 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 595 


the phrase is intelligible as it stands. In 1 Cor. vi. 20 ἠγοράσθητε τιμῆς 
the epithet μεγάλης is not omitted, but the words mean simply: ye have 
been bought with a price; the emphasis lies upon the verb bought, not 
obtained for nothing. In Matt. xii. 32 ὃς ἂν εἴπῃ λόγον κατὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ 
ἀνθρώπου we must not supply βλάσφημον ; to speak a word against one, 

is a phrase complete in itself. In Rev. ii. 6, also, the réndering hoc — 
(laudabile) habes does not assume the omission of some similar word in 
the Greek. A more plausible instance would be Acts v. 29 ὁ Πέτρος καὶ 

οἱ ἀπόστολοι, i.e. of ἄλλοι or λοιποὶ ἀπ. and the like ; yet on this see above, 

§ 58, 7 note, p. 520 sq. 

It would be preposterous also to supply, for HisthicR, éva in Matt. xv. 23 525 
οὐκ ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῇ λόγον or ἑνί in Luke vii. 7 εἰπὲ λόγῳ, or τινῶν in Mark δὶ ed. 
ii. 1 Ov ἡμερῶν (Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 440), or even πολύν in Luke xviii. 4 
ἐπὶ χρόνον. The notion of one is contained in the Singular, and that of 
several in the Plural. Cf. Lucian. Herm. ταλάντου for one talent, and eun. 

6 ἡμέραν unum diem (in Latin, ut verbo dicam), Lucian. Alex. 15 ἡμέρας 
οἴκοι ἔμεινεν, Xen. Eph. 5,2; Charit. 5,9. With Luke xviii. in particular, 
cf. the well-known χρόνῳ Schoem. Isae. p. 444. 

Note. It would be the most absurd of all to admit the existence of an 
ellipsis of adverbs or conjunctions ; and yet this has been done in a variety 
of cases by N.T. expositors. Of such interpreters Hm. opusce. p. 204 
says: qui si cogitassent, adverbia conjunctionesque proprietatibus quibus- 
dam et sententiarum inter se consociationibus ac dissociationibus indicandis 
inservire, quae nisi disertim verbis expressae vel propterea intelligi ne- 
queant, quod, si ellipsi locus esset, etiam aliena intelligi possent : numquam 
adeo absonam opinionem essent amplexi, ut voculas, quarum omissio longe 
aliter quam adjectio sententias conformat, per ellipsin negligi potuisse cre- 
derent. But ignorance of the nature of the moods is in part at the bottom 
of this opinion. Thus with θέλεις εἴπωμεν Luke ix. 54; Heb. viii. 5, etc. 
some have wanted to supply a ἵνα or ὅπως, (see in opposition Hm. p. 207, 
cf. § 41, 4b. p. 285); so also εἰ or ἐάν in sentences like 1 Cor. vii. 21 554 
δοῦλος ἐκλήθης, μή σοι μελέτω (Hm. p. 205; cf. § 60, 4 ο, p. 541) ; so ἄν Tih ed 
(Schwarz, soloec. p. 125) in Jno. xv. 22 εἰ μὴ ἦλθον... ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ εἶχον 618 
and similar sentences (Hm. p. 205, see § 42, 2 p. 808 sq.) ; and so μόνον 
frequently in the expression οὐκ... ἀλλά cf. § 55,8 p. 495 sq. or 1 Cor. 

ix. 9.1 It was likewise thought that ἤ was omitted after the comparative 
in Jno. xv. 13; 3 Jno. 4 (BCrus.), but the clauses with iva in both passages 


1 Μὴ τῶν βοῶν μέλει τῷ θεῷ ; Paul takes into view here only the spiritual sense of 
the law, and considers it from the same point as Philo, who says: od γὰρ ὑπὲρ τῶν 
ἀλόγων ὃ νόμος ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῶν νοῦν καὶ λόγον ἐχόντων, see Mey. The πάντων following 
ought to have deterred from such a weakening of the statement.. In Rom. iv. 9, before 
ἢ καί an etiam, a μόνον is not required; and in iii. 28 μόνον, in the juxtaposition of 
πίστει and χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου (since in Paul’s view πίστει and ἔργοις are mutually 
exclusive antitheses), would be quite superfluous, and would render the sentence 
cumbersome. On Rom. iv: 14, see Fr. in loc. 


596 § 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


are added by way of explanation to the demonstrative pronoun, the Genitive 
of which is dependent on the comparative. Likewise in instances such 
as Acts iv. 22 ἐτῶν ἦν πλειόνων τεσσαράκοντα, xxiii. 18, 21; xxiy. 11; 
_ xxv. 6; Matt. xxvi. 53 7 is not to be supplied (though it is elsewhere 
used in such a construction). The Greeks had become accustomed to 
abbreviate the phrase in this manner, and probably did not regard the 
word πλείονες here as a comparative (more than), but as an annexed 
specification, just as elsewhere the neuter (adv.) πλέον is inserted even 
without government, see Lob. Phryn. p. 410sq.; cf. Mtth..S. 1019. 
Lastly, some wanted (Pott still) in 2 Pet. ili. 4 ἀφ᾽ ἧς. of πατέρες ἐκοιμήθησαν, 
πάντα οὕτως διαμένει ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως to supply ὡς before the last words, 
which would give an appropriate meaning indeed, but would be entirely 
526 arbitrary. Two termini a quo are united here in a single sentence, one 
6th οἱ, closer and one more remote, in so far, that is, as of πατέρες is understood 
of those very fathers (see in particular Semler) who had received the 
promise of the παρουσίας. (There would be a half ellipsis in a particle, if 
οὐ stood for οὔπω, cf. especially Withof, opuse. Ling. 1778. 8vo. p. 32 sqq. 
But in Jno. vi. 17 an οὔπω after the preceding ἤδη is to say the least 
unnecessary: it had already become dark, and Jesus had not come. In 
Jno. vii. 8 οὔπω is in fact only a correction; if we read οὐκ, we cannot 
remove the ethical difficulty of the passage by introducing a grammatical 
one in its place, (see also Boisson. Philostr. her. p. 502; Jacobs, Philostr. 
imagg. 357, and Aelian. anim. IT. 250). It does not follow that od is used 
for οὔπω in Mark vii. 18 because οὔπω occurs in Matt. xv. 17; but in the 
latter passage also od is the better supported reading. In Mark xi. 13 not 
is completely sufficient. Against the admission of another sort of half 
ellipsis, that is, of verba simplicia for composita, see my program de verbor. 
simpl. pro compositis in N. T. usu et caussis. L. 1833. 4to.) 


6. Sometimes a partial ellipsis of both the subject and the 
predicate occurs in one and the same sentence. Gal. v. 13 μόνον 
619 μὴ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν εἰς ἀφορμὴν TH σαρκί (κατέχητε, τρέψητε, Oecum. 
555 ἀποχρήσησθε). The subject as in the second person is obvious 
Τὰ οὐ, from the preceding ἐκλήθητε ; and that part of the predicate which 
forms the copula (κατέχοντες etc., ἦτε, Hm. Vig. 872) is easily 
gathered from εἰς ἀφορμήν (cf. Jacobs, Philostr. p. 525). Matt. 
xxvi. 5 (Mark xiv. 2) μὴ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ sc. τοῦτο γενέσθω or τοῦτο 
ποιῶμεν, unless we prefer repeating from vs. 4 the two verbs 
κρατήσ. x. ἀποκτείν. These words, and Gal. as above, are no 
more an aposiopesis (Mey. on Gal. [in the earlier eds.]) than the 
German: aber nur nicht am Feste (not on the feast day). On 
the partial ellipsis in sentences with μή, see Klotz, Devar. 11. 669. 

In 2 Cor. ix. 6 probably with τοῦτο δέ is to be supplied λέγω (Gal. 

iii. 17; 1 Thess. iv. 15) or φημί (1 Cor. vii. 29; xv. 50) Bos 


§ 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 597 





p. 682 sq.; Franke, Demosth. 83; οἵ. Hm. Aeschyl. II. 362, or 

even λογίζεσθε, (for Meyer’s previous connection of this τοῦτο δέ 

with ὁ σπείρων following produces a limping construction, as he 

himself has felt; and his present view, that τοῦτο δέ is an Acc. 

: Abs., is far-fetched). So too in the phrase οὐχ ὅτι (... adda), 
designed to prevent a misapprehension, I say, I mean, was orig- 
inally understood before ὅτε (Schaef. Bos 775; Hm. Vig. 804), 
Jno. vii. 22 ody ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Maicéws ἐστίν (ἡ περιτομή), ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ 
τῶν πατέρων, vi. 46; 2 Cor. i. 24; iii. 5; Phil. iv. 17; 2 Thess. 
iii. 9. The phrase, however, became so established by use that. 
its origin was no longer thought of, and so Paul could write in 
Phil. iv. 11: ody ὅτε καθ᾽ ὑστέρησιν λέγω. By the side of this 
οὐχ ὅτι might be placed ody οἷον ὅτι : Rom. ix. 6 οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτε 
ἐκπέπτωκεν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, i.e. οὐ τοῖον δὲ λέγω, οἷον ὅτι non tale 
(dico), quale (hoc est) excidisse etc. And the οἷον ὅτι of the 
later writers (Schaef. Gregor. Cor. p. 105) might then be com- 
pared, and as respects circumstantiality of expression the phrases 
adduced by Lob. Phryn. p. 427 ὡς οἷον, οἷον ὥςπερ. Moreover, 527 
two explanations of that Pauline phrase have been propounded : 6th αἱ, 
a. It has been rendered: but it is impossible that; for the τε 
usually attached to οἷον in this sense is in the first place not 
essential, and secondly it is wanting in the passage adduced by 
Wetst. from Gorgias Leont. σοὶ οὐκ ἣν. οἷον μόνον μάρτυρας ... 
εὑρεῖν, cf. also Kayser, Philostr. Soph. p. 848,1 and in the third 
place probably also ody οἷόν τε δέ might be read (Aelian. 4, 17), 
and the construction with the Inf. ἐκπεπτωκέναι tov λόγον had 
been resolved by ὅτι, after the fashion of the later language (cf. 
in Latin dico quod)?; de Wette’s objection falls to the ground, 
if we take λόγος θεοῦ as Fr. does. Ὁ. Some, with Fr., consider 
οὐχ οἷον, as it is often used in later writers, a negative adverb: 
by no means, no such thing (properly ob τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν ὅτι the thing 556 
is not such that), Polyb. 8, 82,5; 18,18, 11. To be sure, the thet 
finite verb then always follows without ὅτι ; but Paul may either 
have employed ὅτε pleonastically (like ὡς ὅτι), or have used and 
construed the phrase in the sense of multwm abest ut, far from 
being the case that. Meyer’s solution is in no respect more 
plausible. 


1 Examples of the personal οἷός ἐστι, such as Mey. adduces from Polybius, have no 
connection with the idiom here examined. Cf. Weber, Demosth. p. 469. 
2 On the relation of the Infinitive construction to a clause with ὅτι, see Krii. 253. 


598 § 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


In Rom. ix. 16 dpa οὖν οὐ τοῦ θέλοντος οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος etc., where it 
is enough to supply ἐστί, the subject of the impersonal sentence (therefore 
it is not of him that willeth, does not depend on the will; see, On εἶναί 
τινος, above, p. 195) is to be gathered from the context: viz. the attain- 
ment of Divine mercy, vs.15. Similar is Rom. iv. 16 διὰ τοῦτο ἐκ πίστεως 
(ἐστ), ἵνα κατὰ χάριν (ἢ), therefore from faith proceeds that of which 
I speak, namely (primarily gathered from vs. 14) ἡ κληρονομία. As to 
Rom. v. 18 see above, no. 2 p. 587. 

In Matt. v. 38 ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ καὶ ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος, the 
subject and part of the predicate are likewise omitted ; although an indica- 
tion of the latter is contained in ἀντί The words, however, are borrowed 
from Exod. xxi. 24, where δώσεις precedes. In such well-known expres- 
sions as the familiar and almost proverbial passages of the law, even a 
verb may have been suppressed that could not elsewhere have been 
omitted without ambiguity ; see under 3, Ὁ. p. 588.1 


7. Even whole propositions are sometimes omitted by ellipsis 
(Hm. opuse. p. 159; Vig. 872): 

a. Rom. xi. 21 εἰ yap ὁ θεὸς τῶν κατὰ φύσιν κλάδων οὐκ ἐφείσατο, 
μήπως οὐδὲ σοῦ φείσεται sc. δέδοικα or ὁρῶτε, which, however, is 
suggested in μήπως. In Matt. xxv. 9 the text. rec. [and Cod. Sin.] 
has μήποτε οὐκ, but there is a preponderance of authority ¢ for 
the reading μήποτε οὐ μή, according to which μήποτε would be 

528 taken by itself (as dehortatory) by no means! 50. δῶμεν vs. 8 or 
θὰ οἱ. γενέσθω τοῦτο, cf. Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 9; Exod. x. 11. In Luke 
xvi. 8 there is not so much an omission of φησί or ἔφη as rather 
an annexation in oratio recta of the further discourse of him to 
whom the expression ὅτε φρονίμως ἐποίησεν belongs. Similar to 
this is v. 14, In Greek prose ἔφη, or the like, is suppressed only 
either where a ὁ δέ, οἱ δέ indicates the speaker (Aelian. 9, 29 ; 
anim. 1,6), or where the mere structure of the sentence indicates 
that some one (else) speaks, as frequently in dialogues. Van 
Hengel (annotatt. p. 8sqq.) is wrong in thinking that this ellipsis 
621 (ἔφη ὁ θεός) occurs in Matt. xxiii. 834; see, on the other hand, Fr. 
Bengel’s remark on 1 Cor. ix. 24 is a mistake. In Matt. xvi. 7 
διελογίζοντο ἐν ἑαυτοῖς Néyovtes* ὅτι ἄρτους οὐκ ἐλάβομεν it is far 
more suitable to supply before ὅτε the simple sentence ταῦτα λέγει 


1 Akin to this Acc. in a passage of the law is that employed in all languages in 
demands, e.g. παῖ λοφνίαν, see Bas p. 601. 

[t The contrary statement is made on p. 504. Οὐ ih although supported by BC D 
and by the majority of the less important authorities, recommended by Grsb., and adopt- 
ed by Lehm., Tisch. 2d and 7th, Alf., Treg., de Wette, Mey. et al., has been abandoned 
by Tisch. 8th ed. for οὐκ, which is supported by (besides δὲ) A LZ 88 ete. —J. 4. 17.| 


ΒΝ 


§ 64, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 599 


and render ὅτι by becawse, than to take ὅτι for the particle intro- 

ducing the oratio recta. In Jno. v. 6,7, the answer ἄνθρωπον 557 

οὐκ ἔχω, ἵνα... βάλῃ pe els τὴν κολυμβήθραν does not seem to Tihed 

correspond directly to the question θέλεις ὑγιὴς γενέσθαι ; so that 

a simple yes, certainly, may be supposed to be omitted. But the 

sick man does not stop at this simple affirmation, but immediately 

proceeds to state the obstacle which has hitherto opposed his wish. 

On passages such as Jno. i. 8 οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα 

μαρτυρήσῃ, ix. 3, see p. 316 sq. 
b. Sometimes a long protasis is followed by no apodosis, e.g. 

2 Thess. ii. 3 f. ὅτε ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον... ὅτι ἔστιν 

θεός, it is necessary to understand from vs. 1: the παρουσία τοῦ 

κυρίου does not arrive. The long protasis! involves this omission, 

So, in particular, the apodosis is wanting to a protasis with ὥςπερ 

in Matt. xxv. 14; Rom. v. 12; ix. 22 ff. see § 63, 1. 1 p. 569 sq. 


Likewise, in quotations from the O. T. there sometimes seems to be an 
ellipsis of an entire sentence, as in 1 Cor. i. 31 ἵνα, καθὼς γέγραπται, ὃ 
καυχώμενος ἐν κυρίῳ καυχάσθω. After iva a γένηται or πληρωθῇ may be 
understood. The apostle, however, unconcerned about the grammatical 
sequence, attached the words of Scripture directly to his own as integral 
parts of the statement, just as in Rom. xv. 3 he introduces in direct dis- 
course the words of Christ from Ps. lxix., cf. xv. 21. In 1 Cor. ii. 9 f, 
however, we must not with Mey. [eds. 180 and 2d] take vs. 10 for the 
apodosis to ἃ ὀφθαλμός etc.; but Paul, instead of saying, in continuity 
with ἀλλά, τοῦτο ἡμῖν etc., annexes the antithesis directly to the words of 
the quotation, so that ἀλλά remains without grammatical sequence. 


II. Aposiopesis, or the suppression of a sentence or part of a 
sentence in consequence of emotion (of anger, οἵ, Stallb. Plat. 
Apol. p. 35,? sorrow, fear, ete., cf. Quintil. 9, 2,54; Tiberius and 
Alexander de figuris in Walz, rhetor. graec. VIII. 536, 450), in 529 
which case the gestures of the speaker supply what is wanting 6th αἱ. 
(Hm. p. 153), occurs, not merely in forms of oaths (§ 55, note 622 
p. 500) in which it became usual, but also after conditional clauses 
in the following passages: Luke xix. 42 εἰ ἔγνως καὶ σύ, καίγε ἐν 
τῇ ἡμέρᾳ σου ταύτῃ, τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην σου, if thou also hadst known 
what concerns thy peace! sc. how fortunate that would have been 


1 ΤῸ this some refer also Jas. iii. 3 (according to what is undoubtedly the true 
reading [supported also by Cod. Sin.] εἰ δέ). But the apodosis is probably contained 
in the words καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα. See the careful discussion by Wresinger in loc. 

2 Like the well-known quos ego—! or the German: warte, ich will dich—! Eng. 
mind, or I’ll—! The aposiopesis may occur even in the form of a question, e.g. Num. 
xiv. 27 ἕως Tivos Thy συναγωγὴν Thy πονηρὰν ταύτην ; οἵ, Acts xxiii. 9 Lchm. 


600 § 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 


(for thee) ; xxii. 42 πάτερ, εἰ βούλει παρενεγκεῖν τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο 
ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ" πλήν etc. In both passages sorrow has suppressed the 
apodosis. Acts xxiii. 9 οὐδὲν κακὸν εὑρίσκομεν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ 
558 τούτῳ’ εἰ δὲ πνεῦμα ἐλάλησεν αὐτῷ ἢ ἄγγελος ... we find nothing 
Τὰ οἱ, evil in this man; but if a spirit has spoken to him or an angel — 
(which the Pharisees utter with gestures expressive of reserve), 
sc. the matter is significant, or requires caution. Others take the 
words interrogatively (Lchm.): 7, however, ... has spoken? how 
then ? what is to be done in that case? See, in general, Fr. 
Conject. 1. 80sq. The addition μὴ θεομαχῶμεν found in some 
Codd. is a gloss. Bornem. has quietly retracted his earlier con- 
jecture. Moreover, it may be doubted whether in the preceding 
passage an aposiopesis really occurs, or merely a break in the 
discourse at vs. 10. In Jno. vi. 62 the apodosis, suggested readily 
by vs. 61, is omitted with an air of triumph: how strange will 
that appear to you! In Mark vii. 11 ὑμεῖς λέγετε" ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος 
τῷ πατρὶ ἢ TH μητρί" KopBav... ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῆς " καὶ 
οὐκέτι ἀφίετε etc. the apodosis is to be supplied from vs. 10: then 
he does right in keeping his vow, and consequently ye release him 
in this case from the obligation τιμᾶν τὸν πατέρα etc., see Krebs 
in loc. 2 Thess. ii. 3 ff. is an anacoluthon, and not an aposiopesis. 
Lastly, in Phil. i. 22 the assumption of an aposiopesis (Rilliet) is 
quite inadmissible. An aposiopesis is in Greek authors? also most 
frequent after conditional clauses (Plat. sympos. 220 d.). Indeed 
when two conditional clauses correspond to each other it is quite 
common to suppress the apodosis after the first (Poppo, Xen. Cyr. 
p. 256; Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 197), the speaker hastening on to 
the second clause as the more important, as in Plat. Protag. 325 ἃ. 
ἐὰν μὲν ἑκὼν πείθηται" εἰ δὲ μή ---- εὐθύνουσιν ἀπειλαῖς καὶ πληγαῖς, 
623 rep. 9, 575d. οὐκοῦν ἐὰν μὲν ἑκόντες ὑπείκωσιν" ἐὰν δὲ μή ete. 
Thue. 8, 8. So Luke xiii. 9 κἂν μὲν ποιήσῃ καρπόν" εἰ δὲ μήγε, 
580 εἰς τὸ μέλλον ἐκκόψεις αὐτήν if it bear fruit, well (let it remain) ; 
δ} οἱ, but if not, then cut it down (though here ἄφες αὐτήν may be 


1 Many expositors find an aposiopesis (1) also in the parallel passage Matt. xv. 5 
bs ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί" δῶρον ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς " Kal ob μὴ τιμήσῃ τὸν 
πατέρα αὑτοῦ —that is, he acts properly (in conformity to the law). But perhaps [yet 
see Meyer’s objections] we should, with Grotius and Bengel, regard the apodosis as 
commencing with καὶ οὐ μή: whoever says to his parents... he is not obliged also 
(in such case) to honor his parents, he is thereby also (in that case) released from the 
commandment τίμα τὸν πατέρα. The καί then would not be pleonastic. 

2 From the O. T. cf. Exod. xxxii. 32; Dan. iii. 15; Zech. vi. 15; see Aster, Erlauter. 
der heil. Schrift, S. 97. 


§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 601 


supplied from what precedes). (On the omission after εἰ δὲ μή 
or εἰ δὲ μή ye of the entire conditional clause, to be supplied from 
the context preceding, see above, p. 583.) 


As an aposiopesis dpa μή might also be regarded in Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 9, 
with which may be compared the forms of dehortation or deprecation, 
frequent in the tragedians, μὴ ταῦτα Eurip. lo 1335, μὴ ov ye etc. Yet 
see above, p. 083 sq. 

In Rom. vii. 25 to the complaint ris pe ῥύσεται ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ 559 
θανάτου τούτου ; is annexed, in an overpowering burst of joy, a brief thanks ‘th οἰ, 
be to God! —also a species of aposiopesis. In unimpassioned style, Paul 
would have said: thanks be to God that he has already liberated me, ete. 

Also in 2 Cor. vii. 12 dpa εἰ καὶ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν some have assumed a res- 
ervation, where Billroth still wants to supply χαλεπόν τι. Paul would thus 
have purposely omitted the word, because the affair still gave him pain. 
But ἔγραψα is of itself complete. 


§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES; PLEONASM 
(SUPERFLUITY),! DIFFUSENESS. 


1. A Pleonasm? is the opposite of an ellipsis, as redundance is 
the opposite of deficiency. A pleonasm, accordingly, would be 
exemplified in the addition of a word that is not intended to add 
anything to the meaning of the sentence (Hm. opuse, I. 217, 222). 624 
In point of fact the earlier philologists not only believed in the 
existence of superfluous words, especially particles (Hm. opuse. 
p- 226), but Kiihnél on Matt. v. 1 (cf. Weiske, pleon. p. 34) goes 
so far as to maintain that τὸ ὄρος may be used for ὄρος. But as 
this (pleonasm of the definite article) is a downright absurdity, 
so is the existence of expletives in the Greek literary language a 
figment. In general, pleonasm, which takes place chiefly in pred- 


1 See Fischer, Weller. III. I. 269 sqq.; B. Weiske, Pleonasmi graeci s. commentar. 
de vocib., quae in sermone Graeco abundare dicuntur. Lips. 1807. 8vo. ; Poppo, Thucyd. 
I. I. 197 sqq. ; in reference to the N. T. Glass. Phil. sacra I. 641 sqq. (it relates, how- 
ever, more to the O. T., and is on the whole meagre) ; Bauer, Philol. Thucyd. Paull. 
p- 202sqq.; Zzschucke, de sermon. J. Chr. p. 270 sqq.; Haab S. 324 ff.; J. H. Maii 
diss. de pleonasmis ling. graec. in N. T. Giess. 1728. (10 sheets). This writer had 
intended to write a work on Pleonasms in general ; see his observatt. in libr. sacr. I. 52. 
Another work, by M. Nascou, announced in a Prodromus (Hayn. 1787. 8vo.), failed, 
in like manner, to make its appearance. 

2 Glassius, as above, has sensible remarks on the definition of a pleonasm ; cf. also 
Flacii clavis script. sacr. Il. 4, 224, and my Ist Progr. de verbis compos. p. 7 sq. 
Quintil. instit. 8, 3,53 gives a simple, but, rightly understood, adequate definition : 
pleonasmus vitium, cum supervacuis verbis oratio oneratur. 

76 


' 


602 ἢ 65, REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 


icates (Hm. as above, p. 219), consists in ingrafting into a sentence 
531 words the full import of which has been already conveyed in 
the. another part of the same sentence (or period), either by the same 
or by an equivalent expression. Even this, however, is done 
intelligently only when, 

a. From carelessness, or from want of confidence in the reader’s 
attention, the same thing is (particularly in extended sentences) 
repeated : nonne tibi ad me venienti nonne dixi? Here nonne is 
intended in reality to be thought but once. So Col. ii. 13 καὶ 

560 ὑ μᾶς νεκροὺς ὄντας ἐν τοῖς παραπτώμασι ... συνεζωοποίησεν ὑμᾶς 
Th εἰ, σύν αὐτῷ, Matt. viii. 1; Eph. ii. 11f.; Phil. iv. 15 var. [Matt. iv. 16] 
(Vechner, Hellenol. p. 177 sq.), Mark vii. 25 γυνή, ἧς εἶχεν τὸ θυγά- 
τριον αὐτῆς πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον, Rev. vii. 2, see ὃ 22, 4 p. 147 sq. 
(Demosth. Euerg. 688 Ὁ. οὗτοι ὥοντο ἐμέ, εἰ πολλά μου λάβοιεν 
ἐνέχυρα, ἄσμενον ἀφήσειν με τοὺς udptupas), 1 Cor. vii. 26 νομίζω 
τοῦτο καλὸν ὑπάρχειν ... OTL καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ, Rev. xii. 9 (2) ef. 
V. Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian. 14 5α.; 2 Tim. iv. 9 σπούδασον 
ἐλθεῖν πρός we ταχέως, 2 Cor. viii. 24 τὴν ἔνδειξιν τ. ἀγάπης ... 
ἐνδεικνύμενοι (yet see § 32, 2 p. 224) ef. Plato, legge. 12, 966 b. 
τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῷ λόγῳ ἀδυνατεῖν ἐνδείκνυσθαι (Xen. Cyr. 8, 
2,5). To this head may be referred also Rom: ix. 29 Sept. ὡς 
Topoppa ἂν ®porwOnpev (in the parallel member ὡς ... ἂν 
eyernOnuev), as well as λογίζεσθαί or ἡγεῖσθαί τινα ὡς 2 Cor. x. 2; 
2 Thess. iii. 15; Lucian. Peregr.11 (instead of the Acc. alone, 
ef. > aan Job xix. 11), as even in Greek authors we find νομίζειν 
ὡς (yet see Stallb. Plat. Phileb. p. 180) and the like. Different 
are Luke xx. 2 εἶπον πρὸς αὐτὸν λέγοντες, Mark xii. 26 πῶς 
εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς λέγων, Acts xxviii. 25 τὸ πνεῦμα ἐλάλησεν... 
λέγον etc. In all these passages the Participle serves to introduce 
(as frequently in the Sept.) the direct discourse (cf. the well-known 
ἔφη λέγων Déderlein, Synon. IV. 13), which might assuredly be 
annexed immediately to εἶπον, εἶπε. Different from this, again, 
are Matt. xxii. 1; Luke xii. 16, and still more Luke xiv. 7; xvi. 2; 
Xviii. 2, ete. 
Another mode of introducing the direct discourse, Luke xxii. 61 
625 ὑπεμνήσθη τοῦ λόγου τοῦ κυρίου ὡς εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Acts xi. 16 ἐμνήσθην τοῦ 
ῥήματος τοῦ κυρίου, ὡς ἔλεγεν, is to be referred to circumstantiality (see 
below, no, 4 p. 606 sq.), like the usage of even Attic authors, Xen. Cyr. 8, 
2, 14 λόγος αὐτοῦ ἀπομνημονεύται, ὧς λέγοι, see Bornem. schol. p. 141, and 
is not to be deemed ἃ pleonasm. 


2. Or when b. one of the synonymous expressions has, from 


ΡΞ 


§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 603 


usage, partially lost its meaning,! as in ἀπ᾽ οὐρανόθεν (Iliad. 8, 
365), ἔξοχος ἄλλων (Hm. Homer. hymn. in Cerer. 862), or a 
repetition, originally emphatic, has in course of time become 
weakened, as πάλιν αὖθις (Hm. Vig. 886). So in the N. T. ἀπὸ 
μακρόθεν Matt. xxvi. 58; Mark xv. 40; Rev. xviii. 10 (Wetst. I. 
524 sq.), ἀπὸ ἄνωθεν Matt. xxvii. 51; Mark xv. 38, ἔπειτα peta 
τοῦτο Jno. xi. T (εὐθέως παραχρῆμα Acts xiv. 10 Cod. D) cf. ἔπειτα 532 


μετὰ ταῦτα Dem. Neaer. 530 etc., εἶτα μετὰ τοῦτο or ταῦτα Arist. Mth ed 


rhet. 2, 9, 18; Plat. Lach.190e. For similar instances, see Poppo, 


Thue. IIL. I. 343; ΠΙ. Il. 88;? in Latin deinde postea Cic. Mil. 561 


24, 65, post deinde, tum deinde etc. Vechner, Hellenol. p. 156 sqq. ρος 
Also Luke xix. 4 προδραμὼν ἔμπροσθεν (Xen. Ο. 2, 2,7; T, 
1, 36), iv. 29 ἐκ βάλλειν ἔξω, Luke xxiv. 50 ἐξάγειν ἔξω, Rey, + 
dii, 12 (Lob. Soph. Aj. p, 337; Bornem. schol. 166 sq.), Acts xviii. 21 
πάλιν ἀνακάμπτειν (Ceb. 29, cf. Kritz, Sallust. 1, 88), Mark 
Vii. 36 μᾶλλον περισσότερον (ὃ 35,1 p. 240, cf. Hm. opuse. 222 ; 
Vechner, Hellenol. p.166 sqq.), Luke xxii. 11 ἐρεῖτε τῷ οἱ κο δεσπότῃ 
τῆς otxvas® (Bornem. in loc.), Rev. xviii. 22, cf. Odyss. 14, 101 
συῶν συβόσια, Her. 5, 64 στρατηγὸν τῆς στρατιῆς, Plato, legg. 2, 
671d.; Cedren. I. 343; Theoer. 25, 95; Jno. xii. 13 τὰ Baia τῶν 
φοινίκων (Baia of itself signifies palm branches), Acts ii. 30 
ὅρκῳ ὥμοσεν ὁ θεός, cf. Exod. xxv. 12. See Jacob, quaest. 
Lucian. p. 10; Bornem. Xen. conv. 186; Pflugk, Eurip. Hee. 
p- 18; Lob. paralip. 534 sqq. 
To this head are to be referred the established schemata: 


a. that καί is used after particles of comparison, Acts xi. 17 626 


εἰ τὴν ἴσην δωρεὰν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς ὡς καὶ ἡμῖν, 1 Cor. vii. T 
θέλω πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἶναι ὡς καὶ ἐμαυτόν (see above, p. 440); 
for the also is already implied in the comparison, which makes 
this very declaration that something takes place also in the case 
of a second object. 


1 From the department of Etymology may be adduced, as instances of the same 
nature, the double comparatives μειζότερος etc., see § 11, 2 p. 69. In German, ef. 
mehrere, for which pedantic purists would substitute, both in writing and speaking, 
mehre. 

2 Cf. from later writers ἀπὸ πανταχόθεν Const. Manass. p. 127, ἀπὸ πρωΐθεν or μηκόθεν 
Theophan. cont. 519, 524, ἐκ δυσμόθεν Nicet. Annal. 18, p. 359 d., ἐκ παιδόθεν or νηπιόθεν 
Malal. 18, p. 429 ; 5, p. 117, ἕνεκα περί Cedren. 1, p. 716, περὶ ... ἕνεκα Niceph. Cpolit. 
p- 6, 35, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ἕνεκα Theophan. cont. p. 138, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ὅτι Deut. xxviii. 62. On the 
last examples, see Hm. opuse. 220. 

8 Οἰκοδομεῖν οἰκίαν Luke vi. 48 is no more a pleonasm than aedificare domum, as both 
verbs acquired at a very early period, from usage, the signification of to build (generally). 
Sce other instances of the sort in Lobeck, paralip. p. 501 sq. 


604 § 65, REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 


8. that an additional negative is annexed to a verb of negation 
in a clause dependent on that verb and supplementing it, 1 Jno. 
ii. 22 ὁ ἀρνούμενος, ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός, Luke xx. 27 
ἀντιλέγοντες, μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστασιν (Xen. C. 2, 2, 20; An. 2,5, 29; 
Isocr. Trapez. 800 ; Dem. Phorm. 585; Thue. 1, 17), Heb. xii. 19 
οἱ ἀκούσαντες παρῃτήσαντο μὴ προςτεθῆναι αὐτοῖς λόγον (Thue. 
5,63), Gal. ν. Τ τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψε τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι (Burip. 
Hee. 860). Cf. further Luke iv. 42; Acts xx. 27; 1 Pet. iii. 10 
(Thue. 5, 25; 7,53; Plat. Phaed. 117 ¢.; Demosth. Phaenipp. 
654 b.; see Vig. pp. 459, 811; Alberti, observ. p. 470 sq. ; Thilo, 
Act. Thom. p. 10; Bttm. exc. 2 in Mid. p. 142 sqq.; Mtth. 1242 f.). 

The German employs a similar construction in the conversational 
style; and this usage in Greek may be accounted for by the cir- 
cumstantiality peculiar to familiar discourse, since in these verbs 
the force of the negation gradually became less sensible, and thus 
was expressly renewed in the dependent clause, cf. Mdv. 5. 248. 
Recent writers, indeed, maintain that this mode of expression is 

562 not to be considered as pleonastic (Hm. opusc. p. 232; Klotz, 

ith ed. evar. p. 6681); yet logically one of the negatives is undeniably 
superfluous. (But even in the N.T. the negation is not always 
subjoined, e.g. after verbs of hindering Luke xxiii. 2; Acts viii. 36 
[1 Thess. ii. 16] ; Rom. xv. 22; οἵ. Mtth. 1243; Mdv. 248; Klotz, 
Devar. p. 668.) 


On the other hand, the following constructions are different from the 
preceding: Acts x.15 πάλιν ἐκ δευτέρου (cf. Jno. iv. 54), Jno. xxi. 16 
πάλιν δεύτερον (Plut. Phil. c. 15), Gal. iv. 9 πάλιν ἄνωθεν (Isocr. Areopag. 
p- 838 πάλιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς), rursus denuo (Hand, Tursell. 11. 279); in all 
which passages a more definite word is added as explanatory. Still greater 
difference is there in Acts v. 23 according to the reading τοὺς φύλακας ἔξω 
ἑστῶτας πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν (Xen. Cyr. 7, 1, 23) ; also in Luke ii. 86 αὕτη jv 
προβεβηκυΐα ἐν ἡμέραις πολλαῖς (cf. i. 7,18), for the meaning is: she 
was far advanced (Lucian. Peregr. 27 ποῤῥωτάτω γήρως προβεβηκώς) ; Rev. 
ix. 7 τὰ ὁμοιώματα τῶν ἀκρίδων ὅμοια ἵπποις, for ὁμοιώματα signifies 

627 forms, cf. Ezek. x. 22; 1 Pet. iii. 17 εἰ θέλοι τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ si 
placuerit voluntati divinae, since θέλημα means the will itself and θέλειν 
the operation of the will (like the Stream streams etc.) cf. Jas. iii. 4. In 
Jno. xx. 4, however, προέδραμεν τάχιον τοῦ Πέτρου is to be taken thus: 
he ran on before, faster than Peter (closer specification). In 2 Pet. iii. 6 
ὕδατι would not be superfluous even if ὑδάτων were supplied with δι dv; 


1 Non otiosam esse negationem in ejusmodi locis, sed ita poni infinitivum, ut non 
res, quae prohibenda videatur, intelligatur, sed qua vi ac potestate istius prohibitionis 
jam non fiat. 


§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 605 


it would designate water as an element, whereas ὕδατα (cf. Gen. vii. 11) 
would signify the concrete (separate) bodies of water. Cf. further, Jude 4. 
As to Heb. vi. 6 see my 3d Progr. de verbb. compos. p. 10. That Luke 
xx. 43 ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου (Heb. i. 13) footstool of thy feet, Gen. 
xvii. 13 6 οἰκογενὴς τῆς οἰκίας σου (Deut. vii. 13) are not, on account of the 
Gen. annexed, entirely similar to the preceding examples, is obvious. 
Lastly, such passages as Mark viii. 4 ὧδε ... ἐπ᾽ ἐρημίας, xiii. 29 ἐγγὺς ... 
ἐπὶ θύραις, 2 Tim. ii. 10 do not properly fall under the notion of pleonasm — 
(Heinichen, Euseb. II. 186), but of apposition. Likewise Mark xii. 23 
ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει, ὅταν ἀναστῶσι can hardly be called diffuseness, as the last 
clause here is an application of the general ἐν τῇ ἄναστ. to the brothers 
mentioned in vs. 20 ff. See Lob. paralip. p. 534. ΑΒ a half pleonasm 
might ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας Eph. v. 2 (both derivatives of ofw) be regarded, and 
compared perhaps to παίδων ἄπαις (Eurip. Androm. 613; Hm. opuse. 
Ρ. 221). But it signifies an odor of sweet smell; ὀσμή is the smell as 
inhaled, εὐωδία is its quality. 








3. 0. Lastly, many redundancies are attributable to a blending 
of two constructions, Hm. opusc. p. 224; Vig. p. 887; as, Luke 
ii. 21 ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν ἡμέραι ὀκτώ... καὶ ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα (instead 
οἵ ἐπλήσθ. δὲ ju. ... καί, or ὅτε err. ... ἐκλήθη), Vii. 12 ὡς ἤγγισε 563 
τῇ TUAN τῆς πόλεως, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐξεκομίζετο τεθνηκώς, Acts χ, 11. To [ὦ 
this head might be referred also Rom. ix. 29 (see under a.) ; and 
it is even possible that ὅτε before the oratio recta originated in 
this way (Rost, Gr. 641). With more assurance may we explain 
thus the pleonastic negation in the phrase ἐκτὸς εἰ μή (Devar. 1, 
~ 74): 1 Cor. xiv. 5 μείζων ὁ προφητεύων ἢ ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσαις, ἐκτὸς 
εἰ μὴ διερμηνεύῃ except he interpret, xv.2; 1Tim.v 19. The 534 
' Germans in colloquial speech often employ a similar mode of δ "ὦ 
expression: alle waren zugegen, ausgenommen du nicht; ich 
komme nicht, bevor du nicht gesagt hast etc. In the preceding 
quotation, either ἐκτὸς εἰ διερμηνεύῃ or εἰ μὴ διερμηνεύῃ might have 
been used. On that and other similar phrases (such as πλὴν εἰ 
μή) much has been collected by Lob. Phryn. p. 459; οὗ also 
Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 869; Doederlein, Oed. Col. p. 382 sqq. On 
the other hand, in the expression εἰ δὲ μή γε, when it seems to 
mean, but if not, otherwise (after a negative clause) Matt. vi. 1; 
ix. 17; 2 Cor. xi. 16, the negation cannot be considered as pleo- 
nastic according to the original import of the phrase; see Fr. 628 
Mt. p. 255. 
4, The greater part of what has been called pleonasm in the 
N. T. (and out of it) is ctrcwmstantiality or more frequently 
Julness of expression (Hm. opuse. p. 222 sqq. and Vig. 887; 


606 § 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 


Poppo, Thue. I. I. 204 sqq.); the former of which arises from the 
writer’s endeavor to be rightly understood, and the latter is de- 
signed to give vividness, force (solemnity), sonorousness to style. 
It must also be remembered that the N.'T. diction is to a great 
extent conversational, or akin to it; and that the above-mentioned 
peculiarities are pre-eminently characteristic of Oriental expres- 
sion. Such phraseology differs from pleonasm in this, that every 
word and part of a word in a seutence contains something intended ᾿ 
to add to the general meaning, though it may not be absolutely 
necessary for the logical completeness of the thought, e.g. Mark 
1.17 ποιήσω ὑμᾶς γενέσθαι ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων, for which Matt. 
iv. 19 has ποιήσω ὑμᾶς ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων. The opposite is not 
ellipsis, but conciseness. 

In the first place, as respects circumstantiality the following 
cases are to be distinguished : 

a. A word, only required once to complete the thought, is 
repeated in every parallel member where it might have been simply 
understood :! Heb. ii. 16 οὐ yap ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται, ἀλλὰ 
σπέρματος “ABp. ἐπιλαμβάνεται, Jno. xii. 3 ἤλειψεν τοὺς 
πόδας τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ ἐξέμαξε ταῖς θριξὶν αὐτῆς τοὺς πόδας 
παν αὐτοῦ; Rev. xiv. 2 2 ἤκουσα φωνὴν ἐκ τοῦ ovpavod ... καὶ ἡ φωνή, 

ἣν ἤκουσα, ΠΧ. 21; xvi.18; 1 Cor. xii.12; xv. 54: Phil. ii. 16 ; 
564 iv. 17; Jno. x. 10; Rev. ix. 1 f.; Mark i. 40; Matt. xviii. 32, of. 
th el. in Greek authors, Xen. Mem. 2, 10,3; Demosth. Zenoth. 576c. ; 
Long. 2, 3; Lucian. Cynic. 9; Jacob, Lucian. Alex. 117 ; Poppo, 
Thue. III. II. 23; in Latin the expressions, especially frequent in 
Jul. Caesar, in ea loca, quibus in locis ; dies, quo die etc. Such 
repetitions ensure perspicuity, particularly when several words in- 
tervene. Sometimes repetitions have a rhetorical aspect, see no. 5. 
b. The usual or indispensable instrument (e.g. a human limb) 
is expressly mentioned along with the action in point: Acts 
— 685 xv. 23 γράψαντες διὰ χειρὸς αὐτῶν (they were to deliver it), xi. 80 
6th αἱ. @ Cor. xi. 33) ; xix. 11; ili. 18 προκατήγγειλε διὰ στόματος πάντων 
ge τῶν προφητῶν, xv. 7; Luke i. 70 ete. Of. from the poets, Eurip. 
Ton 1187 χερσὶν ἐκχέων σπονδάς (var.), Hec. 526 f. ; Theoer. 7, 153 
ποσσὶ χορεῦσαι, see Lob. Aj. p. 222 f. (Wunder, Recens. p. 17 sq.). 
But in Rom. x. 15 (Sept.) ὡς ὡραῖοι οἱ πόδες τῶν εὐαγγελιζομένων 


1 We must judge differently many of the repetitions used by the orators who had in ' 
view the delivery before the people of what they had written; cf. Foertsch, de locis 
Lysiae, p. 29. Of a different nature also is the repetition of the same word in Plat. 
Charm. 168 a. 


§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 607 


εἰρήνην the notion of arrival, implied in πόδες, is very far from 
being superfluous; and in 1 Jno. i. 1 ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλ- 
pots ἡμῶν (Luke ii. 30) an emphasis is obviously intended in 
the last words, like: to see with one’s own eyes (Hesiod. theog. 701 ; 
Thue. 2,11; Aristot. mirab. 160 ; Heliod. 4, 19 ; see Bremi, Aesch. 
I. 124; ef. Jani ars poet. p. 220sq.). And in Mark vi. 2; Acts 
v. 12 it is to be considered that the miracles in question were 
wrought by the laying on of hands. But analogous to this (cir- 
cumstantial) form of expression is Luke i. 76 προπορεύσῃ πρὸ 
προςώπου κυρίου, ix. 52 (5355). a phrase used also as precisely 
equivalent to before (in reference to inanimate objects): Acts 
xiii. 24 πρὸ προςώπου τῆς εἰςόδου αὐτοῦ, cf. Sept. Num. xix. 4 
ἀπέναντι τοῦ προςώπου THs σκηνῆς, Ps. xxxiv.6 κατὰ mposwtrov 
ἀνέμου. 

c. An action which according to the nature of the case precedes 
another, is also expressed separately, and generally by a participle : 
Matt. xxvi. 51 ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἀπέσπασεν τὴν μάχαιραν 
αὐτοῦ, ii. ὃ ὅπως κἀγὼ ἐλθὼν προςκυνήσω αὐτῷ (Xiv. 33), Jno. 
vi. ὃ ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς καὶ θεασάμενος etc., Matt. xiii. 31 
ὅμοια κόκκῳ σινάπεως, ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔσπειρεν etc. Vs. 88 ; 
Acts xvi. 3 (Xen. Eph. 3, 4 ὁ δὲ αὐτὸν λαβὼν ἄγει πρὸς τὸν ᾿Ανθίαν, 
see Locella p. 141), Jno. vi. 15 γνοὺς ὅτε μέλλουσιν ἔρχεσθαι καὶ 
ἁρπάζειν αὐτόν, Matt. xix. 21. Likewise in 1 Cor. ii. 1 κἀγὼ ἐλθὼν 
πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, ἦχθον ov etc. the participle was not necessary. 
What Bornem. Cyrop. 5, 3, 2 has adduced is of a different nature, 
as in his passages the participle is separated by several words from 
its verb. On the other hand, in Luke i. 31 συλλήψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ 
καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν etc. no one will find a mere redundancy of language ; 
the momentous nature of the favor vouchsafed her is expressed 
by specifying its several particulars. In Luke xxiv. 50 ἐπάρας 
Tas χεῖρας αὐτοῦ εὐλόγησεν αὐτούς the participle denotes the sym- 
bolical gesture of the person blessing. In Eph. ii. 17 ἐλθών marks 
ἃ particular both important and demanding distinct consideration ; 
so too in Luke xii. 57. Likewise in Jno. xxi. 13 ἔρχεται ᾿Ιησοῦς 565 
καὶ λαμβάνει τὸν ἄρτον καὶ δίδωσιν αὐτοῖς every separate act of the Me. 
wonderful occurrence is designedly specified, and, as it were, 
placed before the eyes. In Jno. xi. 48 ἐλεύσονται of “Ῥωμαῖοι 630 
refers to the approach of the Roman armies. See, further, Matt. 
viii. 8, 7; ix. 18; xxvii. 48; Luke vi. 20 (Ael. 12, 22) ; Jno. xv. 16; 
Rev. xvi. 1, 2. And in Acts viii. 35 ἀνοίξας ὁ Φίλιππος τὸ στόμα 
αὑτοῦ καὶ ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ Ths γραφῆς ταύτης εὐηγγελίσατο etc. prob 


608 § 65, REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 


ably ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα etc. serves for the (solemn) introduction of 
an important discourse ; as undoubtedly is the case in Matt. v. 2 
(see Fr. in loc.). Cf. in general, Fischer, de vitiis lexic. p. 223 sqq.; 
Pflugk, Eurip. Hel. p. 134. 

d. A word which we are accustomed to think is implied in 


536 another is also explicitly stated: Acts iii. 3 ἠρώτα ἐλεημοσύνην 
δὲ οἱ. YaSetv (see Wetst. iv loc. and Boisson. Eunap. p. 459; ef. Vir. 


631 


Aen. 5, 262 loricam...donat habere viro), Mark i. 17 ποιήσω 
ὑμᾶς γενέσθαι ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων, see above, p. 606; cf. Exod. 
xxiii. 15; Demosth. ep. 3, p. 114 Ὁ. ἣ καὶ τοὺς ἀναισθήτους ἀνεκτοὺς 
ποιεῖν δοκεῖ γίνεσθαι. 

6. In the course of a narration the Hebraistic καὶ ἐγένετο is 
prefixed to particular occurrences: Matt. vii. 28 καὶ ἐγένετο, ὅτε 
συνετέλεσεν ... ἐξεπλήσσοντο, for which a Greek author would 
say simply, καὶ ὅτε or ὅτε δὲ συνετ. etc.! On the other hand, in 
Jno. xi. 11 ταῦτα εἶπεν, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο λέγει αὐτοῖς, neither ταῦτα 
εἶπεν nor μετὰ τοῦτο is superfluous; the latter indicates a pause. 


To c. might be referred also the use of the participle ἀναστάς, as in 
Matt. ix. 9 ἀναστὰς ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ, Mark ii. 14; vii. 24; Luke i. 39 
(similar to the Hebrew opt3). But although here ἀναστάς was not nec- 
essary, yet this participle is by no means redundant in other passages 
which expositors bring under the same rule. Thus in Matt. xxvi. 62 
ἀναστὰς ὃ ἀρχιερεὺς εἶπεν αὐτῷ means obviously: he stood up from indig- 
nation, he rose (from his seat); similar is Acts v.17; Mark i. 35 πρωὶ 
ἔννυχον λίαν ἀναστὰς ἐξῆλθε rising in the morning, while it was still very 
dark, etc.; Luke xv. 18 ἀναστὰς πορεύσομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα pov (I will 
arise and go) J will forthwith, etc. In general, too many participles in 
the N. T. have been represented as redundant; and though the decision 
may occasionally be doubtful, yet very many of them express notions 
which were they not expressed would be missed. Thus in 1 Cor. vi. 15 
ἄρας ow τὰ μέλη τοῦ Χριστοῦ ποιήσω πόρνης μέλη ; (see Bengel in loc. 


566 Aristoph. eq. 1180 ; Soph. O. R. 1270), 1 Pet. iii. 19 τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασι 
th ed. πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξεν. In Luke xii. 87 παρελθὼν διακονήσει αὐτοῖς drawing 


near, he will serve them, even tested by our Western notions, is more 
striking and vivid than if παρελθών had been omitted, (παρελθών in Ael. 
2, 30 likewise, does not seem to me redundant). Cf. in general, Schaef. 


1 This always occurs when an additional specification of time precedes the principal 
clause, and the principal verb is then appended either by καί (see on this Fr. Mt. p. 341), 
as in Matt. ix. 10; Luke v. 1, 12; ix. 51, or more frequently without a copula, as in 

τευ πως τα τ * ** - 
Matt. xi. 1; xiii. 53; χῖχ. 1; xxvi.1; Mark iv.4; Luke i. 8,41; 11..1 ete. This 
usage is most frequent in Luke’s Gospel. To render this καί by also, even, is far from 
a happy thought, Born. Schol. p. 25. Besides, this ἐγένετο is pleonastic, as the speci- 
fication of time might be directly joined to the principal verb. 


§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 609 


Soph. I. 253, 278 ; II. 314; Demosth. IV. 623 ; Pflugk, Eurip. Hel. p. 134; 
ΜΈ. 1300 ἢ 

Further, with Acts iii. 8 under d. may be compared Acts xi. 22 ἐξαπέ- 
στειλεν Βαρνάβαν διελθεῖν ἕως ᾿Αντιοχείας (where the ancient versions 
drop the Inf. as superfluous, though it undoubtedly existed in the text), 
which, however, properly signifies: they sent him out with the commission 
to go etc. Similar is Acts xx. 1 ἐξῆλθεν πορευθῆναι εἰς τὴν Μακεδονίαν he 


departed to go to Macedonia. Cf. also Caes. εἶν. 3, 33. On the other hand, 537 
I cannot with Born. find a mere redundancy in οἱ δὲ καταξιωθέντες τοῦ bth ed, 


αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τυχεῖν Luke xx. 35. The τυχεῖν denotes something not 
strictly implied in καταξιοῦσθαι preceding, and is required to render the 
expression complete and perspicuous. Cf. Demosth. cor. p. 328b. κατ᾽ 
αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἄξιός εἰμι ἐπαίνου τυχεῖν, and Bos, exercit. p.48; Bornem. 
schol. p. 125. 

Such idioms as Mark xi. 5 ri ποιεῖτε λύοντες τὸν πῶλον, Acts xxi. 13 τί 
ποιεῖτε κλαίοντες καὶ συνθρύπτοντές μου THY καρδίαν, in comparison with the 
usual τί λύετε, κλαίετε, appear to be, in like manner, circumstantial. But 
what do ye loosing properly denotes: what is your intention in loosing, 


_ quid hoe sibi vult? ποιεῖν, therefore, has not here the general meaning of 


do, which is already contained in every special verb; and the phrase τί 
λύετε (for) what loose ye? may with.more probability be regarded as 
abbreviated, than the preceding phrase as redundant. 


5. Fulness of expression, by which the writer aims sometimes 
at didactic or rhetorical force (solemnity), sometimes at graphic 
vividness, occurs generally in one of the following forms: 

a. The same word is once and again repeated in parallel members 
(Xen. An. 3, 4, 45): Eph. ii. 17 εὐηγγελίσατο εἰρήνην ὑμῖν τοῖς 
μακρὰν καὶ εἰρήνην τοῖς ἐγγύς, Jno. vi. 63 τὰ ῥήματα... πνεῦμά 
ἐστιν καὶ ζωή ἐστιν, Col.i.28 νουθετοῦντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον 
καὶ διδάσκοντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον, (πο. 1. 10 ; ix. δ; xiv. 26, 
27; xv. 19. xix.10; Matt. xii. 37; Rom. v.12; xiv. 14; 1 Cor. 
i. 24, 27; xiii. 11; 2 Cor. xi. 26; Rom. (iii. 31) viii. 15 οὐκ 
ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα δουλείας... ἀλλὰ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας 
(in Heb. xii. 18, 22 the repetition was essential to perspicuity) ; 
1 Cor. x. 1 f. οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν πάντες ὑπὸ τὴν νεφέλην ἦσαν καὶ 
πάντες διὰ τῆς θαλάσσης διῆλθον, καὶ πάντες εἰς τὸν Μωῦσῆν 
ἐβαπτίσαντο καὶ πάντες ... καὶ πάντες ete. (Caes. bell. gall. 
1, 31), Phil. iii. 2; iv. 8; 2. Cor. vii. 2; 1 Cor. xiv. 24; Rev. 
viii. 7,12; 1 Cor. vi. 11 ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητε, 
ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε, i. 20; iv. 8; 1 Tim. ν. 10.; 2 Cor. vi. 2 ἐδοὺ 


632 - 


νῦν καιρὸς εὐπρόςδεκτος, ἐδοὺ νῦν ἡμέρα σωτηρίας (Arrian. Epict. 567 
8, 23, 20), xi. 20; Eph. vi. 12,17; v.10; 1Jno.i.1; Rev. xiv. 8; 1 οἱ. 


77 


610 8 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 


xviii. 2 (likewise the polysyndeton in Rev. vii. 12; Rom. ii. 17 f.; 
1 Cor. xiii. 2 may be referred to this head). So often in earnest 
addresses ; as, Matt. xxv. 11 κύριε, κύριε, ἄνοιξον ἡμῖν, xxiii, 37 ; 
Luke viii. 24; x. 41; xxii. 81; Acts ix. 4, and demands Jno. 
xix. 6; Kriig. Dion. p. 11. In all these cases it was not to be 
left to the reader to repeat in thought a word employed once, but 
as often as it is to be understood the writer ee ec it, in order 
to render its importance perceptible (especially ἐκ παραλλήλου 
Rom. xi. 82; 1 Cor. xv. 21). 

b. ene often (particularly by John) is a thought, intended 
to be brought out with great precision, expressed affirmatively in 
one member of a sentence and negatively in another (parallelismus 
antitheticus, see Hm. opuse. p. 223): Jno. i. 20 ὡμολόγησε καὶ οὐκ 
ἠρνήσατο, Eph. v.15 μὴ ὡς ἄσοφοι GAN ὡς σοφοί, vs. 17; Jno.i. 3; 
ill. 16; x. 5 (xviii. 20); xx. sbi 1 Jno. 1. 6; ii. 4, 27;. Luke 
i. 20; Acts xviii. 9; 1Tim.ii. 7; Jas.i.5,23; 1 Pet. i. 98: v. 2; 

#5388 Heb. vii. 21; x. 37 Gaaas xii. 8; ie ii. 13; iii. 9 (Deut. 
Shel xxviii. 13; Isa. iii. 9; xxxviii.1; Ezek. xviii. 21; Hos. v. 3) 5 ; 
ef. Eurip. El. 1057 φημὶ κοὐκ ἀπαρνοῦμαι, Ael. an. 2, 43 οὐκ 
ἀρνοῦνται οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἀλλ᾽ ὁμακδηοβδι; especially in the orators, 
Dem. fals. leg. p. 200¢. φράσω καὶ οὐκ ἀποκρύψομαι, see Maii 
obsery. sacr. II. 77 sqq.; Kypke I. 350 sq.; Poppo, Thucyd. I. I. 
204; Hm. Med. ed. Elmsley p. 361 and Soph. Oed. Col. p. 41; 
Philoct. p. 44; Jacob, quaest. Lucian. p. 19; Weber, Demosth. 

p. 814; Boisson. Eunap. p. 164 sqq. ; Maetzner, Antiph. p. 157. 

c. In the following combinations graphic effect is aimed at: 
Acts xxvii. 20 περιῃρεῖτο ἐλπὶς πᾶσα, Rom. vill. 22 πᾶσα 
ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει καὶ συν ὠδίνει, Matt. ix. 35; cf. Diod. S. ΤΥ, 
41 περινιψάμενος τὸ σῶμα πᾶν, Strabo 11, 500 πολλαῖς συμ- 
πληρούμενος πηγαῖς, Lucian. paras. 12; Long. 4,15; Cic. sen. 18 
consurrexisse omnes, Liv. 88, 29 cum omnia terrore et fuga com- 
plessent, see my 2d Progr. de verb. compos. p. 21 sq. 

d. Likewise the forms of address in Acts i. 11 ἄνδρες Γαλιλαῖοι, 

688 iii. 12 ἄνδρες ᾿Ισραηλῖται, ii. 14; v.35; xiii. 16 have the same 
(courteous) force (men of Israel!) as the well-known ἄνδρες 
᾿Αθηναῖοι, which itself occurs in Acts xvii. 22, or ἄνδρες δικασταί. 
See ὃ 59, 1 p. 528. 


Every ee word was indispensable i in 2 Cor. ii. 16 οἷς μὲν ὀσμὴ θανάτου 
εἰς θάνατον, οἷς δὲ ὀσμὴ ζωῆς eis ζωήν. A savor of death unto death, a savor 
of life unto life, means: an odor of death which, from its nature, can 
bring nothing else than death, etc. 


— se a ΨΥ 


§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 611 


Redundancy of expression is often erroneously supposed to exist in 
passages where synonymes are found connected in order to express (as 
frequently in Demosth.) a single main idea, see Schaef. Demosth. I. 209, 
820, 756; Plutarch. Γ΄. 8387; V.106; Weber, Demosth. p. 376; Franke, 
Demosth. p. 12; Bremi, Aeschin. I. 79 ; Lucian. Alex. ed. Jacob p. 24; 
Poppo, Thue. II. I. 619 ; Schoem. Plut. Agis 171 ; ef. Lob. paralip. 61 sq. 

But Paul, from whom the examples in question have mostly been taken, 568 
is not in the habit of combining in one sentence really synonymous expres- ‘th ed 
sions, — (not even in Eph. i. 5,19; ii. 15 iv. 23; 1 Cor. i. 10; ii. 4; 

1 Tim. ii. 1; v. 5; ef. Jas. iii. 13; Jno. xii. 49; 1 Pet. 1. 4; iv. 9; 1 Jno. 

i. 1, etc.; Fr. Rom. 11. 372). A more careful study of Greek, but especially 

of apostolic diction, precludes a supposition according to which e.g. the 
apostolic salutation χάρις, ἔλεος καὶ εἰρήνη, would become extremely flat. 
Likewise there is nothing pleonastic in the combinations θυμὸς ὀργῆς 
Rev. xvi. 19, πέλαγος τῆς θαλάσσης Matt. xviii. 6, ἐπιφάνεια τῆς παρουσίας 

2 Thess. ii. 8, σπλάγχνα ἐλέους or οἰκτερμοῦ Luke i. 78; Col. 1.12. The 
second of these was correctly rendered aequor’maris by so early a critic 

as Wetstein ; πέλαγος, that is, denotes the expanse (of the sea), and is thus 
applied to the surface of a river also, see Schwarz, commentar. p. 10672 
And σπλάγχνα is a comprehensive expression which is more closely defined 

by the Genitive. The parallelismus membrorum, which occasionally 539 
oceurs in the N. T. (see § 68, 3), has nothing to do with pleonasm. As Sth ed. 
to the parallel distribution of doctrinal particulars in Rom. iv. 25; x. 10, 

see de Wette on the first passage. 


6. The pleonasm of entire sentences is inconceivable.. When 
a sentence is expressed a second time with but slight alteration, 
the writer’s object always is to give to a thought peculiar force, or 
to exhibit it under different points of view. This occurs in 2 Cor. 
xii. 7 τῇ ὑπερβολῇ τῶν ἀποκαλύψεων ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι, ἐδόθη 634 
μοι σκόλοψ"... ἵνα με κολαφίζῃ, ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι (where 
the last words are omitted, it is true, in good Codd. [also Sin.*], 
but surely only because they seemed superfluous), Rey. ii. 5 .-- 
μετανόησον καὶ τὰ πρῶτα ἔργα ποίησον" εἰ δὲ μὴ (peravoeis), 
ἔρχομαί σοι ταχὺ καὶ κινήσω τὴν λυχνίαν σου ἐκ τοῦ τόπου αὐτῆς, 
ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσῃς (ef. Plat. Gorg. 814. ἡμῖν ἐπιχειρητέον 
ἐστί... θεραπεύειν, ὡς βελτίστους αὐτοὺς τοὺς πολίτας ποιοῦντας " 


1 Schéfer’s remark, Demosth. I. 320, “ usus (synonymorum) duplex, gravior alter, 
ut vim concilient orationi, alter levior, ut vel aures expleant vel numeros reddant 
jucundiores,” has reference primarily only to the orators. 

2 The investigation of N. T. synonymes (begun not infelicitously by Bengel) has lately 
been prosecuted, rather on the principle of free combination than historically, by 
Tittmann (de synonymis N. T. lib. 1. Lipsiae 1829. 8vo.). Further, ef. also the col- 
lections and remarks in Bornemann’s diss. de glossem. N. T. p. 29 sqq. 


612 § 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 


ἄνευ yap δὴ τούτου, ὡς ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν εὑρίσκομεν, οὐδὲν 

ὄφελος... ἐὰν μὴ καλὴ κἀγαθὴ ἡ διάνοια ἢ τῶν μελλόντων 

etc. Stallb. Plat. apol. p. 23). Οἱ ] Cor. xiv. 6 see Mey. On 

1 Cor. vii. 26, see above, no. 1 p. 602. On the other hand, in 1 Jno. 

ii. 27 ὡς τὸ αὐτὸ χρίσμα διδάσκει tds... καί, καθὼς ἐδίδαξεν 

ὑμᾶς, μενεῖτε ἐν αὐτῷ the resumptive phrase καθώς etc. is so far 

from being a pleonasm, that it could hardly have been dispensed 

with. Similar is Rev. x. 3,4. Cf as to such expressions Hm. 

569 Eurip. Bacch. 1060 and Soph. Antig. 691; Philoct. 269, 454; 

me Reisig, conject. Aristoph. p. 314 sq.; Heind. Plat. Phaed. p. 52 

and Cic. nat. ἃ. 1,16; Schaef. Demosth. V. 726; Mtth. 1541 f. — 

___Ofa different nature is Rey. ii. 13 οἶδα ποῦ κατοικεῖς " ὅπου ὁ θρόνος 

τοῦ σατανᾶ, where ὅπου ὁ θρόνος etc. is immediately annexed to 

explain (as if in answer to) ποῦ κατοικεῖς. So might also Mark 

ii. 24 be taken; but τί here is probably why? On the other hand, 

2 Cor. vii. 8; Jno. xiii. 17 do not come under this head ; and in 

1 Cor. i. 22 the clause ἐπειδὴ καὶ Iovdaior ... μωρίαν is manifestly 

not a mere repetition of ἐπειδὴ yap... τὸν θεόν vs. 21, any more 

than ἡμεῖς δὲ κηρύσσομεν etc. vs. 23 is a mere echo of the words 

in vs. 21 εὐδόκησεν 6 θεός ete. And-in Rom. vi. 16 οὐκ οἴδατέ, ὅτι 

. ᾧ παριστάνετε ἑαυτοὺς δούλους eis ὑπακοήν, δοῦλοί ἐστε ᾧ ὑπακούετε 

would not have been ἃ mere uttering of idem per idem, even had 

ἤτοι ἁμαρτίας eis θάνατον ἢ ὑπακοῆς eis δικαιοσύνην not been 

straightway annexed to δοῦλοι as a closer specification. As little 

do the two members of the sentence Rom. vi. 6 ἵνα καταργηθῇ τὸ 

σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, τοῦ μηκέτι δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς τῇ ἀμαρτίᾳ com- 

pletely coincide in sense; the latter is the aim, concretely expressed, 

of what, designated generally, is the καταργηθῆναι of the σῶμα τῆς 

ἁμαρτίας. 1 Pet. ii. 16, however, does not remotely come under 

this head ; 2 Pet. iii. 4 also is of a different nature. On Matt. 

540 v. 18 there may be a difference of opinion, inasmuch as πάντα in 

th ed. the last clause may be either referred to the law (Olsh., Mey.), or 

explained with Fr. universally: donec omnia (quae mente fingere 
queas) evenerint. The latter, however, is not very plausible. 

7. We subjoin now several other passages in which, although 

from of old N. T. expositors have been accustomed to assume the 

635 existence of pleonasms, neither pleonasm nor redundancy of any 

sort occurs. And first of all, there is a statement to which cur- 

rency has been given even by recent commentators, and which is 

propped up with misunderstood parallels from Greek authors, that 

in the N.T. many verbs, viz. ἄρχεσθαι, δοκεῖν, θέλειν, τολμᾶν, 


— 


ee 


§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 613 


δύνασθαι, when joined with an Infin., are often used pleonastically ; 
Kiihnél on Luke i. 1 represents even ἐπιχειρεῖν to be one of them ; 
ef. Weiske, pleon. under the words. The whole rule is founded ᾿ 
in error. In the first place 

a. With regard to Luke i. 1 ἐπιχειρεῖν in the clause ἐπειδήπερ " 
πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν etc., is 110 more used 
without special meaning than is the Latin aggredi in aggressus 
sum scribere (though even philologers share that view, see Herbst, 
Xen. mem. p. 38, and on the other side, Heind. Plat. soph. p. 450). 
Luther well renders it: sintemal es sich viele unterwunden haben 
(whereas many have taken it upon them) etc. So in all the passages 
from the classics adduced by Kiihndl. 

b. So also τολμᾶν (Weiske p. 121 sq.), to undertake something, 
always implies some matter of difficulty or importance, sustinere, 
to bring one’s self to (Blume, Lycurg. p. 89), Rom. v. 7; 1 Cor. 
vi. 1. In Jno. xxi. 12, however, it simply means audere, make 
bold to; and itis only respecting the ground of their not venturing 
to interrogate Jesus that doubt may be entertained. The assertion 570 
of Markland, Lys. p. 159 ed. Taylor, ought not to have misled Τὰ οἰ 
any expositor. 

c. As to δοκεῖν cf. Fr. Matt. iii. 9 and the earlier critic J. D. 
Michaelis in the Nov. Miscell. Lips. 1V. 45. In 1 Cor. x. 12 ὁ 
δοκῶν ἑστάναι is obviously, he that thinketh he standeth, cf. Gal. vi. 3. 
In Mark x. 42 οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν τῶν ἐθνῶν means, they who pass 
for the rulers of the nations, are recognized as such (similar are 
Gal. ii. 9; Susann. 5; Joseph. antt. 19, 6,3. The parallel passage 
Matt. xx. 25 has merely of ἄρχοντες). Luke xxii. 24 τίς αὐτῶν 
δοκεῖ εἶναι μείζων quis videatur habere (habiturus esse) princi- 
patum, who was to be judged to have the pre-eminence (over the 
rest) ; the matter is still future and so merely an object of con- 
jectural judgment. 1 Cor. xi. 16 εἴ τις δοκεῖ φιλόνεικος εἶναι if 
any one thinks (it allowable) to be contentious, or (Mey. and 
de Wette) if any one seems to be contentious, is an urbane ex- 
pression. Luke viii. 18 ὃ δοκεῖ ἔχειν what he thinks he has. On 
1 Cor. iii. 18; vii. 40; viii.2; xiv.37; Heb. iv. 1 (where Béhme 
regards δοκεῖ as used elegantius, while Kiihnél and Bleek judge 
more correctly) no remark is required. Cf. in general, Bornem. 636 
schol. p. 52 sq. 

d. Most of the passages in the Gospels where critics have con- 
sidered ἄρχεσθαι as pleonastic (cf. too Valcken. Selecta I. 87), 
have been correctly explained by Fr. Mtth. p. 539 sq. ef. p. 766. 


614 § 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 


541 In regard to Luke iii. 8 Bengel hints at the truth: omnem excusa- 
the. tionis etiam conatum praecidit. In particular, it is quite absurd 
to regard this verb as redundant in Luke xii. 45; xxi. 28; 2 Cor. 
iii. 1. In Jno. xiii. 5 ἤρξατο indicates the commencement of the 
» action whose completion is related in vs.12. Acts xxvii. 35 is 
' explained by vs. 36: Paul’s ἄρχεσθαι ἐσθίειν was an invitation to 
the rest to do the same. In Acts xi. 15 Kiihnél adduces as a 
reason why ἄρξασθαι λαλεῖν must be equivalent to λαλεῖν : ex 
x. 43 patet, Petrum jam multa de rel. chr. disseruisse etc. But 
ἄρχεσθαι Xan. primarily designates only the commencement of the 
discourse, which for that very reason has not yet been completed 
(Peter intended to continue to speak, x. 44 ἔτι λαλοῦντος τοῦ IT.). 
But why this commencement is to be referred solely to the first 
six or eight words is not apparent. Moreover, it must not be 
overlooked that ἐν τῷ ἄρξασθαί με λαλεῖν in an address, Acts xi., 
is stronger, as if: scarcely had I uttered a few words, when ete. 
In Acts xviii. 26 ἤρξατο is to be connected with ἀκούσαντες δὲ αὐτοῦ 
etc. following. On Actsii.4 see Meyer. Likewise in Acts xxiy. 2 
the discourse of Tertullus, which to judge from the introduction 
vs. 8 was undoubtedly intended to be of greater length, probably 
was interrupted by the corroboration of the Jews vs. 9, and Paul 
himself broke in immediately after ; or vs. 2 is to be taken thus: 
as soon as he was called, Tertullus beyan etc. (began his dis- 
course forthwith). 
e. In regard to θέλειν (Gataker, Mr. Ant. 10, 8) in Jno. v. 35, 
see Liicke’s careful examination of the subject. More plausible 
571 is 2 Tim. iii. 12 πάντες οἱ θέλοντες εὐσεβῶς ζὴν ἐν Χριστῷ. 
Τῷ οὐ But the meaning of these words is: all who determine, who are 
minded, to live piously etc. In Heb. xiii. 18 the import of θέλοντες 
is obvious. Jno. vii. 17 was correctly understood “by Kiihndl. 
And in Jno. vi. 21 that expositor has rejected Bolten’s arbitrary 
explanation ; a difference between it and Mark vi. 51 will have to 
be acknowledged. In 1 Cor. x. 27 καὶ θέλετε πορεύεσθαι is: and 
you are willing, decide, to go (instead of declining the invitation). 
On 1 Pet. iii. 10 see Huther. 
f. In opposition to Kiihnél, who considers δύνασθαι in Matt. 
ix. 15 as pleonastic, see Fr. By BCrus. it is erroneously made 
637 to signify be allowed or desire. Still less should the authoritative 
word redundat mislead us in Luke xvi. 2 and Jno. vii. 7. In the 
latter passage, in particular, there is obviously an intended 
difference between δύναται μισεῖν and μισεῖ. 


§ 65, REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 615 





Among nouns erroneously supposed to be sometimes used pleonastically, 
must be specially mentioned épyov when followed by a Genitive (Boisson. 
Nicet. p. 59) e.g. Rom. ii. 15 ἔργον νόμον, Eph. iv. 12; 1 Thess. i. 3 (see 
Koppe) ; see in opposition Fr. on Rom. as above. In 1 Thess., as above, 
the very parallelism of ἔργον τῆς πίστεως with κόπος τῆς ἀγάπης forbids our 
taking ἔργον as a pleonasm; see de Wette in loc. The correct view of 
Eph., as above, has already been given by Flatt. From the Greek 
authors, also, no instance of ἔργον as a pleonasm can be adduced. In 
Polyaen. 1, 17 ἔργον rod Aoyiov undoubtedly means the matter of the oracle, 
the deed foretold in the oracle. In Diog. L. prooem. 1 τὸ τῆς φιλοσοφίας 
ἔργον is the occupation of philosophizing, the cultivation of philosophy, ef. 542 
just afterwards ἄρξαι φιλοσοφίας (in Latin cf. virtutis opus Curt. 8, 14, 37, 6th ed. 
proditionis opus Petr. fragm. 28, 5), not precisely the fabric, system, of 
philosophy. Χρῆμα is different from ἔργον, and even χρῆμα with a Genitive 
is not properly a pleonasm, see Passow under the word. As to ὄνομα 
(very frequently regarded as pleonastic, see Kiihnél on Jno. p. 133) Wahl 
has already given the true view (cf. v. Hengel, Philipp. p. 160), see also 
my, Simon. lexic. Hebr. under 0%; yet this word certainly requires a more 
precise handling than it has yet received in N. T. Lexicons. (As toa 
periphrastic use of ὄνομα in Greek poets, see Mtth. 965.) In Col. ii. 16 
ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νουμηνίας ἢ σαββάτων is no more pleonastic than in 
respect (or in the matter) of holidays, new moons, etc. Lastly, in Rom. 
vi. 6 σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας is a single composite idea, the body of sin, i.e. the 
(human) body ; respecting the relation of which to sin no reader of Paul’s 
epistles can be at any loss. See above, p. 188. 


8. Nearly all the earlier expositors asserted, that by a sort of 
half pleonasm καλεῖσθαι is used for εἶναι (Graev. lection. Hesiod. 
p- 22; Porson, Eurip. Hippol. v. 2; Blomfield, Aesch. Pers. p. 128; 
on the other hand, Ellendt, lexic. Soph. I. 912), in which use at 
the same time there was thought to be a Hebraism (x ps, esse). 
But Bretsthn. lex. man. p. 209 sets the matter right by saying: 
sum videlicet ex aliorum sententia. Cf. van Hengel, Cor. p. 53 sq. 572 
As to xvp2 see my Simon. lex. p. 867. In the N.T. καλεῖσθαι Tih ἃ 
always signifies to be named, to be called, Jas. ii. 23; Matt. v. 19; 
xxi. 13, especially in reference to names of honor, which denote 
the possession of a certain dignity, Matt. v. 9; Lukei. 76; 1 Jno. 
iii. 1; Rom.ix.26. It is used even as antithetical to εἶναι (to be), 638 
1 Cor. xv. 9 (even so much as to bear the name of an apostle), 
Luke xv. 19. Nor can ὀνομάξεσθαι Rom. xy. 20 (1 Cor. v. 1); 
Eph. i. 21; iii. 15; v. 8 be weakened down to a mere esse; (it 
is even emphatic, as μηδέ in the last passage shows).! It is an 


1 The passages adduced by Schwarz, Comment. p. 719sq., from Greek authors to 


548 
6th ef, 


573 
Tth el. 


639 


616 § 65. REDUNDANT SENTENCES. 


utter perversion when many expositors render even Heb. xi. 18 
ἐν ᾿Ισαὰκ κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρμα : existet tibi posteritas ; (Schulz, 
too, very inaccurately translates it: thow wilt receive offspring). 
Εὑρίσκεσθαι also is said (see Pott on 1 Cor. iv. 2; ef. the 
annotators on Plut. educ. 18, 5), like yx: (ef. on the other hand 
my Simonis p. 575), often to be used instead of εἶναι. But these 
two verbs are always distinguished from each other by this, that 
εἶναι denotes the quality of a thing in itself, while εὑρίσκεσθαι 
denotes that quality as found, discovered, recognized, in the subject. 
Matt. i. 18 εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα it proved (it appeared) that 
she was with child (jv ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα might have been previously 
said), Luke xvii. 18 ody εὑρέθησαν ὑποστρέψαντες δοῦναι δόξαν τῷ 
θεῷ εἰ μὴ ὁ ἀλλογενὴς οὗτος ; were none found (as it were, did 
none show themselves) who returned? Acts viii. 40 Φίλιππος 
εὑρέθη εἰς "Ἄζωτον Philip was found (cf. πνεῦμα κυρίου ἥρπασε τὸν 
Pir. vs. 89) at Ashdod (properly, transported to Ashdod, by the 
πνεῦμα κύρ. that carried him away), Rom. vii. 10 εὑρέθη μοι ἡ 
ἐντολὴ ἡ εἰς ζωὴν αὕτη εἰς θάνατον it proved, appeared (from Paul’s 
personal experience vss. 8-10) that the commandment for life had 
become to me a commandment for death, Gal. ii. 17 εἰ δὲ... 
εὑρέθημεν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἁμαρτωλοί but if we ourselves were found sinners 
(before God and man), 1 Cor. iv. 2; 2 Cor. v. 3; Phil. iii. 9; 
Rey. xii. 8 οὐδὲ τόπος εὑρέθη αὐτῶν ἔτι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ neither was 
their place any more found (any more to be seen) in heaven, as 
we say: every trace of them was blotted out (cf. Rev. xvi. 20; 
xvili. 21; xx. 11), 1 Pet. ii. 22 οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῷ στόματι 
αὐτοῦ nor was guile found in his mouth, no guile could be detected 
in his words (Rev. xiv. 5). Phil. ii. 7 was correctly rendered by 
Luther. The Greek passages adduced as parallel, by Kypke I. 2; 
Palairet p. 198; Schwarz et al., prove nothing. In Mr. Anton. 
9,9 τὸ συναγωγὸν ἐν τῷ κρείττονι ἐπιτεινόμενον εὑρίσκετο ete. 
εὑρίσκομαι retains its proper meaning: was found. Hierocl. in 
carm. Pythag. p. 88 ed. Lond. ἀρχὴ μὲν τῶν ἀρετῶν ἡ φρόνησις 
εὑρίσκεται is: prudentia virtutum principium esse deprehenditur, 
i.e. it is found by the considerate that etc. ; Eurip. Iph. Taur. TT7 
(766) ποῦ ποτ᾽ ὄνθ᾽ εὑρήμεθα ; ubi tandem esse deprehendimur 
(deprehensi sumus) ? whither does it turn out that we have wan- 
dered? In Joseph. antt. 17 (not 7), 5, 8 εὑρίσκ. refers to those 
very persons in whose opinion Herod wished to avoid standing 


prove that καλεῖσθαι or ὀνομάζεσθαι is used for εἶναι, dispose of themselves for an atten-- 
tive reader. The attempt to take nominari for esse in Cie. Flacc. 27 is truly ridiculous. 


865. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 617 


unfavorably. Of. also-Soph. Trach. 410; Aj. 1114 (1111) ; Diod. 
Sic. 8, 89; 19, 94; Athen. I. 331; Schweigh. Philostr. Apoll. 7, 
11; Alciphr. 1,30. In Ignat.ad Rom. 3 λέγεσθαι χριστιανόν and 
εὑρίσκεσθαι χριστιανόν are contrasted.? 

9. Among the particles, ὡς in particular has frequently been 
regarded as pleonastic, as in 2 Pet. i. 3 ὡς πάντα ἡμῖν τῆς θείας 
δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ... δεδωρημένης. But ὡς combined with the par- 
ticiple in the construction of the Gen. absol. imparts to the verbal 
notion the impress of subjectiveness, of a persuasion or purpose. 
Hence the preceding passage, taken in connection with vs. 5, 
must be rendered: persuaded (reflecting) that the divine power 
has bestowed on us all things, ... earnestly endeavor etc., ἡγούμενοι; 
ὅτι ἡ θεία δύναμις ... δεδώρηται (1 Cor. iv. 18), cf. Xen. C. 3, 3,4 
ὡς εἰρήνης οὔσης on the understanding of there being peace, 3,1, 9 
ὡς τἀληθῆ ἐροῦντος assured that I am telling the truth, cf. 6, 1, 37; 
Mem. 1, 6, 5; Strabo 9, 401; Xen. Eph. 4, 2; Dion. Hal. ΠῚ. 1925 ; 544 
see Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 320; Loesner, obs. p. 483; Lob. Soph. Aj. 6th οἱ 
p. 203; Fr. Rom. II. 360. (In Greek authors this particle is thus 
connected also with the Acc. absol., e.g. Xen. C. 1, 4, 21; An. 7, 
1,40.) ‘Ws is likewise, with the same import, put before a Dative 
governed by a verb, Acts iii. 12 ἢ ἡμῖν τί ἀτενίζετε ὡς ἰδίᾳ δυνάμει 
... πεποιηκόσιν etc. In Rom. xv. 15 ὡς ἐπαναμιμνήσκων, the parti- 
cle ὡς means as (of the characteristic) : as one who reminds you 
according to the grace of God. 

In Rom. ix. 82 ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως, ἀλλ᾽ ds ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, the expression 
ἐκ πίστεως denotes the objective standard ; ὡς ἐξ ἔργων, the purely imagi- 
nary. 2 Cor. xiii. 7; Jno. vii.10; Philem. 14 also are to be traced back 
to acomparison. And Matt. vii. 29 ἦν διδάσκων ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων, Jno. i. 14 
δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, mean simply: as one having authority, 
as of the only begotten etc., and even in these instances the particle does 
not of itself indicate what exists revera, though, if we regard the sense, 640 
this idea is implied in the comparison (exactly as, altogether as, like, i.e. ἃ 
the true, perfect glory of the Son of God, etc.). 

In reference to ὡς ἐπί Acts xvii. 14 we have to remark, that és joined 
to a preposition of direction (ἐπί, πρός, εἰς) expresses either the actual 574 
purpose of taking a certain direction, or even the mere pretence or Tthed 
assumed appearance of doing so, Kiihner II. 280. In the preceding 
passage, Beza, Grotius, and others have understood it in the latter sense ; 


1 The same applies to the Latin invenire (e.g. Cic. Lael. 12, 42), which Schwarz in 
the like clumsy way represents as equivalent to esse. Even in Malalas εὑρίσκεσθαι, in 
most passages, still retains clearly the signification of inveniri, e.g. 14 p. 372. So also 
in Theophan. ; see the Index in the Bonn edition. 

78 


618 § 66. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 


the former interpretation, however, is simpler and more suited to the 
context. As parallel instances, cf. Thuc. 5, 3; 6,61; Xen. An. 1, 9, 23; 
7, 7,55; Diod. 5. 14, 102; Polyb. 5, 70, 3; Arrian. Al. 2,17, 2; 8, 18, 
14. See besides, Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 1004. Also in ὡς ὅτι, in im- 
mediate succession’ (as it were, as that), ws properly indicates that the 
statement introduced by ὅτι is a mere report, an alien or even pretended 
opinion, Isocr. Busir. argum. p. 520 κατηγόρουν αὐτοῦ ὡς ὅτι καινὰ δαιμόνια 
εἰςφέρει. So also 2 Thess. ii. 2 εἰς τὸ μὴ σαλευθῆναι ὑμᾶς ... μήτε διὰ λόγου 
μήτε δι᾿ ἐπιστολῆς... ὡς ὅτι ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου. In 2 Cor. xi. 21, 
likewise, this import of ὡς is perceptible (see Mey. in loc.), and in 2 Cor. 
v. 19, if the statement be regarded as the substance of the διακονία τῆς 
καταλλαγῆς conferred. In the earlier authors, too, ὡς ὅτι is thus used 
Xen. H. 3, 2, 14; Dion. H. III. 1776.2, Among the later (Theodoret. epp. 
p- 1294) see Thilo, Act. Thom. p. 10sq. and Lehrs de Aristarch. p. 34. 
Similar, but decidedly pleonastic, is és ἵνα in Byzantine writers, as in 
Due. 8. p. 31, 127 ; Jo. Canan. p. 467, 470 f. Still more strange is ἵν᾽ ὅπως 
Constant. Man. p. 62; Geo. Acropol. p. 62. (As to the earlier ds οἷον, 
see Bast, ep. crit. p. 48 ; Hm. opuse. I. 219 sq.) 

545 Οὕτως also has been said to be redundant in Jno. iv. 6 (Kiihnél): 6 

6th οἱ, Ιησοῦς κεκοπιακὼς ἐκ τῆς ὁδοιπορίας ἐκαθέζετο οὕτως. But this adverb is 
frequently employed thus after a participle to repeat the participial notion: 
wearted with the journey, sat down thus (sic ut erat, in consequence of this 
fatigue), Xen. A. 4, 5,29; C. 5, 2,6; 7,5, 71; Hellen. 7, 4,20; Arrian. 
Al. 5, 27,138; Ellendt, Arrian. I. 4. On οὕτω at the beginning of an 
apodosis, see § 60, 5 p. 541. 


10. A half pleonasm of a particle is found by Palairet p. 305, 
after Glassius, in Acts xiii. 84 μηκέτι μέλλοντα ὑποστρέφειν εἰς 
διαφθοράν, where μηκέτι is supposed to stand for the simple μή 
(as Christ had never’gone to corruption). But the phrase es 
διαφθορὰν ὑποστρέφ. denotes, as so early a critic as Bengel per- 

641 ceived, simply to (die and) be buried. The quotation from Aelian. 
12, 52 is of no force ; μηκέτι there signifies : no longer (as hitherto), 
just like οὐκέτι in Jno. xxi. 6. Many used to teach a half pleo- 
nastic use of οὐκέτι also; but likewise erroneously. In Rom. 
vii. 17 νυνὶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγὼ κατεργάζομαι αὐτό, ἀλλ᾽ 4... ἁμαρτία is: 

575 now, however, after having made this observation vs. 14 sqq., ὑΐ is 

ithed. no longer I that do the evil, i.e. I can no longer consider myself 
the primary cause of it, cf. vs. 20. Rom. xi. 6 εἰ δὲ χάριτι, οὐκέτι 


1 Τὴ Aristot. Pol. 8, 7 és ὅτι is used differently ; that is, és corresponds to an ante- 
cedent οὕτως. 

2 For separated, so that ὅτι in the course of the sentence resumes ds, both particles 
were used at an early period, Schoem. Isae. p. 294 ; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 566. 


§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 619 


ἐξ ἔργων is: if by grace, then (it is) no more (further) of works, 
i.e. the latter thought is annihilated by the former, it can no longer 
exist. Rom. xiv. 138,15; 2 Cor. i. 23; Gal. ii. 20; iii. 18 are 
plain. In Jno. iv. 42 οὐκέτι derives elucidation from vs. 41, 
where διὰ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ is antithetical to διὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς 
γυναικός vs. 39; two motives for πιστεύειν are distinguished, 
an earlier and a later. As to Jno. xv. 15 see Liicke. Moreover, 
Xen. A. 1, 10, 12 cannot be adduced in support of such a use of 
οὐκέτι, and still less (μηκέτι) Xen. Eph. 1, 13 (in Paus. 8, 28, 2 
recent editors give οῦκ ἔστι, yet see Siebelis in loc.). Cf. also 
Lucian. Parasit. 12; Sext. Emp. Math. 2,47; Arrian. Epict. 3, 
22,86. Likewise on Aelian. Anim. 4,3 Jacobs admits that οὐκέτι 
is used for the simple negation paullo majore cum vi. 


§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES 
(BREVILOQUENCE, CONSTRUCTIO PRAEGNANS, ATTRACTION, 
ETC.). 


1. The inherent predilection of.the Greeks for terseness and 
compactness of discourse exhibits itself even in prose in various 
modes of expression, some of which are to be found in the N. T. 
They all, however, agree in this, that an intermediate member 
not absolutely essential to the sense is omitted, and the other 
parts of the sentence are drawn together into one compound whole. 

Cf. Mtth. 1533 ff.; Doederlein, de brachylogia serm. gr. et lat. 546 
Erlang. 1831. 4to. This breviloquence is akin to ellipsis, yet os 
different from it, inasmuch as in an elliptical sentence the gram- 
matical structure always indicates the omission of a definite 
individual word, while in breviloquence the break is always 
covered up by the structure. 

~ To breviloquence belong the following cases: 642 

a. Toa protasis is joined an apodosis without a direct connection: 
Rom. xi. 18 εἰ δὲ κατακαυχᾶσαι, οὐ σὺ τὴν ῥίζαν βαστάζεις, ἀλλὰ ἡ 
ῥίζα σέ but if thou... then know or reflect that, not thou, ete. 

1 Cor. xi. 16. The full structure would be: ἔσθι (dvavood), ὅτι 
ov σύ etc. ; cf. Clem. ad Cor. I. 55. The sentence could not be 
called elliptical unless it ran thus: εἰ δὲ κατακ., ὅτι ov σύ etc. ; 
then ὅτε would point to an actually omitted word, such as, know 
or consider. In like manner, in Latin, scito is often suppressed 
between the protasis and the apodosis, Cic. or. 2,12,51. Cf. also 
1 Jno. v. 9 εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυρία 


620 § 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 


576 τοῦ θεοῦ μείζων ἐστίν, we must consider that the testimony of God 

ith ed. etc., or, we must much more receive the testimony of God, which 
etc. ; 1 Cor. ix.17. (In Rom. ii. 14, however (Fr.), the protasis 
and the apodosis are connected without any difficulty.) In Matt. 
ix. 6 ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε, ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ... (τότε 
λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ) ἐγερθεὶς pov σου τὴν κλίνην, where the 
words inserted by the Evangelist do not belong to the structure 
of the sentence: that ye may know... stand thou up and take etc., 
ie. the paralytic shall at my command immediately rise up, I 
command the paralytic: Stand up etc. (arfalogous to this are the 
constructions so frequent in the orators, such as Dem. cor. 829 ο. 
ἵνα τοίνυν εἰδῆτε, ὅτι αὐτός μοι μαρτυρεῖ... λαβὼν ἀνάγνωθι τὸ 
ψήφισμα ὅλον, see Kypke and Fr. in loc.). Jno. ix. 86 καὶ τίς 
ἐστι, κύριε, ἵνα πιστεύσω εἰς αὐτόν ; sc. I wish to know, in order 
that etc., cf. i. 22. 

A breviloquence similar to that in sentences with ἵνα takes place when 
through ἀλλ᾽ iva an event is referred to a prophetic prediction, as in Jno. 
xv. 25; xiii. 18; Mark xiv. 49; cf. 1 Cor. ii. 9. Yet in such passages 
what is wanting before ἵνα may usually be supplied from the preceding 
context, see Fr. exc. 1. ad Matt. p. 841. 

b. To a general predicate, the appropriate verb of which is 
omitted, a special verb (with its predicate) is directly annexed : 
Phil. iii. 13 f. ἐγὼ ἐμαυτὸν od λογίζομαι κατειχηφέναι, ἕν δέ, τὰ μὲν 
ὀπίσω ἐπιλανθανόμενος, τοῖς δὲ... κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω etc. for ὃν δὲ 
ποιῶ, κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω, οἵ. Liv. 35, 11 in eos se impetum facturum 
et nihil prius (facturum), quam flammam tectis injecturum. 
2 Cor. vi. 18 τὴν δὲ αὐτὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ... πλατύνθητε καὶ 
ὑμεῖς for τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ ὅ ἐστιν ἀντιμισθία etc. see Fr. diss. in 2 Cor. 
II. 115; as to the Acc., however, οἵ. Hm. opusc. 1.168 sq. Similar 
is Jude 5 ὅτε ὁ κύριος λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας TO δεύτερον 

048 τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν. Here the verb to be connected 

547 with τὸ δεύτ. would properly have been οὐκ ἔσωσε (ἀλλά etc.) : 

bth el. the Lord, after having delivered them, did, on a second occasion 
(when they were in need of his helping grace), refuse them his 
delivering grace and destroy them etc. Cf. further Rom. xi. 23 
δυνατός ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς πάλιν ἐγκεντρίσαι αὐτούς. The αὐτοί are 
those that grew upon the stock κατὰ φύσιν ; they therefore cannot 
be ingrafted on the stock again. In strictness the language ought 
to run: again to unite them to the stock, viz. by ingrafting. 

On the other hand, Col. iii. 25 ὃ ἀδικῶν κομιεῖται ὃ ἠδίκησε could hardly 
in accordance with the genius of the Greek language be regarded as 


§ 66, CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 621 


brachylogical. It denotes (according to the signification of κομίζεσθαι) 
pretty nearly: he will reap the wrong; not that he will suffer the same 
wrong which he has committed, but its fruits, the reward of it, the wrong 

in the form of penalty. Cf. Eph. vi. 8. Similar to this are Jno. xii. 5 

διὰ τί τοῦτο τὸ μύρον οὐκ ἐπράθη... .. καὶ ἐδόθη πτωχοῖς ; — and (the proceeds) 577 
given to the poor (strictly, and in the form of money arising from the sale ‘th od 
given to the poor), and 1 Cor. xv. 37. 


6. Acts i. 1 ὧν ἤρξατο ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ποιεῖν τε καὶ διδάσκειν ἄχρι ἧς 
ἡμέρας etc., i.e. what Jesus began, and consequently continued, 
to do and to teach until the day etc. (vs. 227); much like Luke 
xxiii. 5 διδάσκων καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας, ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλυ- 
λαίας ἕως ὧδε beginning from Galilee and continuing to this place, 
and Matt. xx. 8; Jno. viii. 9; Strabo 12,541. The construction 
proposed for these last passages by Fr.: διδάσκων ἕως ὧδε, ἀρξάμ. 
ἀπὸ τ. Γαλιλ. (Lucian. somn. 15), is too artificial. The assertion 
of Valckenaer, however, and Kiihndél, that in Acts i. 1 ἄρχεσθαι is 
pleonastic, seems to be a mere makeshift. 

2. Brachylogy appears with especial frequency, and was noticed 
by the ancient grammarians, 

ἃ. in what is called constructio praegnans (which connects ἃ 
preposition with a verb that includes another as consecutive) ; as, 
2 Tim. iv. 18 σώσει εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν will save me into his kingdom, 
i.e. save me, translating me into etc. Acts xxiii. 24; 1 Pet. iii. 20 
(Her. 7, 230; Xen. A. 2, 3,11; Polyb. 8,11; Lucian. asin. 56 
etc., cf. my 5th comment. de verb. compos. p. 9), 2 Tim. ii. 26 
ἀνανήψωσιν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ διαβόλου παγίδος, Matt. v. 22 ἔνοχος ἔσται 
εἰς τὴν γέενναν (§ 31, 5 p. 213), Rom. viii. 21 ἐλευθερωθήσεται ἀπὸ 
τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς eis τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης etc. (see Fr. 
in loc.), Acts v. 37 ἀπέστησε λαὸν ἱκανὸν ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ, xx. 30; 
2 Cor. xi. 3 μήπως .. . φθαρῇ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἁπλότητος, 
Acts viii. 40 Sir. εὑρέθη εἰς "Ἄζωτον (Rom. vii. 10). See, further, 
Acts xxiii. 11; Luke iv. 38; xviii. 3; Gal. v.4; Rom. vii. 2; 
ix. 3 (xv. 28); xvi. 20; 1 Cor. xii. 13; xv.54; 2Cor.x.5; Heb. 644 
ii. 3; x. 22; Eph. ii. 15; 1Tim.v.15; 1 Pet. iii. 10. According 
to some, Heb. v. 7 also comes under this head, see Bleek in loc. 
(Ps. xxii. 22 Hebr.; Ps. exvii. 5 Sept.); with more certainty 
Mark vii. 41 does. This species of conciseness occurs frequently 


1 The passage must be rendered: (on returning) from the market (like Arrian. Epict. 
8, 19,5 ἂν μὴ εὕρωμεν φαγεῖν ἐκ βαλανείου), if they have not washed themselves, they 
eat not. To refer βαπτίσωνται to the food (as Kiihnél does), would be opposed not so 
much by the usus loquendi (for βαπτισμός, derived from Barri¢., is in vs. 4 obviously 


622 § 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 


548 in Greek prose, cf. Markland, Eurip. suppl. 1205; Stallb. Plat. 

the. Huthyphr. p. 60; Poppo, Thuc, I. I. 292sq.; on the Hebr., how- 
ever, see Ewald 8. 620. Expressions such as κρύπτειν or κλείειν 
τι ἀπό τινος (1 Jno. iii. 17), μετανοεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς κακίας (Acts viii. 22) 

578 or ἐκ τῶν ἔργων etc. (Rev. ix. 20f.; xvi. 11), ἀποβλέπειν and 

The. ἀφορᾶν εἰς Heb. xi. 26; xii. 2, παραλαμβάνειν εἰς Matt. iv. 5, 
ἀσφαλίζεσθαι τοὺς πόδας eis τὸ ξύλον (Acts xvi. 24), συγκλείειν 
τοὺς πάντας εἰς ἀπείθειαν (Rom. xi. 32), originate in like manner 
from a constructio praegnans, though by us it is scarcely’ felt. 
On βαπτίζειν twa εἴς twa, see Fr. Rom. I. 859. In general, cf. 
further Fr. Mr. p. 322, also § 50, 4 p. 413 sq. 

e. in what is called Zeugma (synizesis), when two nouns are 
construed with a single verb, though only one of them, the first, 
directly suits it (cf. Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 429 sq.): 1 Cor. iii. 2 γάλα 
ὑμᾶς ἐπότισα, οὐ βρῶμα, where ἐπότισα suits γάλα only, and for 
βρῶμα we must educe from this verb the idea to feed, cf. Acta 
apocr. p. 60; Luke i. 64 ἀνεῴχθη τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ... Kai ἡ γλῶσσα 
αὐτοῦ. where properly ἐλύθη (cf. Mark vii. 35) must be understood 
for γλῶσσα (and a few authorities have it), see Raphel in loc.? 
In 1 Tim. iv. 8 κωλυόντων γαμεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων, the word 
κελευόντων (or with the Scholiast in Matthaei εἰςηγουμένων᾽. must 
be deduced from κωλ. (i.g. κελεύειν μή) for the latter Inf.; [in the 
same way in 1 Thess. ii. 8 the simple verb δοῦναι from the foregoing 
compound μεταδοῦναι must be supplied with ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς ἑαυτῶν 
ψυχάς]. And lastly, 1 Cor. xiv. 84. Cf. Soph. Oed. R. 242; 
Eurip. Phoen. 1223; Plat. rep. 2,374 Ὁ. (yet see Stallb. in loc.) ; 

645 Protag. p. 327 c.; Demosth. cor. ὃ 55, see Dissen in loc. ; Arrian. 
Al. 7,15, 5. In Greek authors, sometimes from the first verb 

- must be deduced one of exactly the opposite import for the second 
member of the sentence, Kiihner 11. 604; Stallb. Plat. Cratyl. 

p- 169. This was applied to Jas. i. 9,10, where it was thought 
ταπεινούσθω (or αἰσχυνέσθω)" was to be understood with ὁ δὲ 


applied to things), or by the Mid. voice, for this might signify wash for themselves, as 
by the circumstance that in this way a very ordinary thought, and an unexpected one 
in the connection, is introduced. For, the washing of articles of food brought from 
the market was not a mere precept of Pharisaism, but a proceeding required by the 
nature of the case and by the spirit of the Mosaic laws concerning purification. 

1 That ἀνοίγειν γλῶσσαν could be employed in plain prose is not proved by what 
has been adduced by Segaar in loc. We may remark also, in passing, that the zeugma 
usually quoted from Her. 4, 106 disappears in the edition by Schweighius. in which 
the text is: ἐσθῆτα δὲ φορέουσι... γλῶσσαν δὲ ἰδίην ἔχουσι. As, however, there is 
no MS. authority for ἔχουσι, later editors have with reason declined to follow him. 

2 The passage quoted by Hottinger in loc. from Plat. rep. 2, 367 ἃ, runs as follows, 


§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 623 


πλούσιος. But this is unnecessary; and the thought is finer if 
καυχάσθω is made to apply also to the second member, see my 
Observ. in ep. Jac. p.6. On 1 Cor. vii. 19 see above, ὃ 64, 1 p. 583. 
For examples of Greek and Latin zeugmata, see d’Orville, Charit. 
p. 440 sq.; Wyttenb. Plut. moral. I. 189 sq. ed. Lips.; Schaef. 
Dion. p. 105; Engelhardt, Plat. apol. p. 221; Bremi, exc. 3 ad 
Lys.; Vle. Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian. p. 132; Funkhaenel, Demosth. 
Androt. p. 70; Hand, lat. Styl. p. 424 f. 

f. in comparisons (Jacobs, Anthol. pal: IIT. 63,494; Achill. 549 
Tat. p. 747; Fr. Mr. p. 147), i.e. with the Comparative (ef. § 35, “ἃ 
5 p. 245) and in constructions with adjectives of resemblance, e.g. 
Rey. xiii. 11 εἶχε κέρατα δύο ὅμοια ἀρνίῳ (properly ἀρνίου 579 — 
κέρασι), as in Iliad. 17, 51 κόμαι Xapirecow ὁμοῖαι, Wisd. ii. 15; Τὰ ed 
vii. 3; 2 Pet. i. 1 τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσι πίστιν (for ἰσότ. TH 
ἡμῶν πίστει). Jude 7. Cf. also Xen. Cyr. 5,1, 3 ὁμοίαν ταῖς δούλαις 
εἶχε τὴν ἐσθῆτα, 6,1, 50 ἅρματα ἐκ τοῦ ἱππικοῦ τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ ὅμοια 
ἐκείνῳ (i.e. τοῖς ἐκείνου), Lliad. 1, 163 οὐ μέν σοί ποτε ἴσον ἔχω 
γέρας (i.e. ἴσον τῷ o@), Arrian. Epict. 1, 14,11; Mtth. 1016. 
This breviloquence in comparisons is, however, in the Greek 
authors much more diversified still, see Xen. Cyr.5,4,6; 2,1,15; 
Hier. 1, 38; Isocr. Evag. ο. 14 ; Diod. 5. 3,18; Ael. anim. 4, 21; 
Dion. H.I.111; see Wyttenb. Plut. Mor. I. 480sq.; Schaef. Apollon. 
Rhod. 11. 164; melet. p. 57; Demosth. III. 463; Stallb. Plat. 
Protag. p. 153; rep. I. 134, also Heinichen, Euseb. 11. 154. In 
the N. T. under this head come also 1 Jno. iii. 11 f. αὕτη ἡ ἀγγελία 
ἣν ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους" οὐ καθὼς Κάϊν 
ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἣν etc. Strictly, there is nothing to be supplied 
(ὦμεν or ποιῶμεν would not suit od), but the comparison is 
expressed carelessly, and the reader easily sets it to rights for 
himself: that we love each other, not as Cain was of the wicked one 646 
etc. will, or should, it be with us.? 


Luke xiii. 1 ὧν τὸ αἷμα Πιλᾶτος ἔμιξε pera τῶν θυσιῶν αὐτῶν (for μετὰ 


in the recent editions, agreeably to MS. authority: τοῦτ᾽ οὖν αὐτὸ ἐπαίνεσον δικαιοσύνης, 
ὃ αὐτὴ δι᾽ αὑτὴν τὸν ἔχοντα ὀνίνησι καὶ ἀδικία βλάπτει; and is thus no longer 
similar. 

1 Rey. ix. 10 probably does not come under this head. The comparing of tails to 
scorpions is nearly in the style of the poet, and is sustained by other passages, see 
vs. 19 and ef. Ziillig in loc. 

2 Cf. Demosth. Mid. p. 415 a. ob γὰρ ἐκ πολιτικῆς αἰτίας, οὐδ᾽ ὥςπερ ᾿Αριστοφῶν ἀποδοὺς 
τοὺς στεφάνους ἔλυσε τὴν προβολήν not on account of a political offence, and did not like A. 
«ον quash the proceeding, i.e. nor acting in the way by which A. quashed the im- 
peachment. In opposition to Reiske, who would here insert ὅς, see Spalding in loc. 


624 § 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 


τοῦ αἵματος τῶν θ. 7) may also be referred to this head, though not neces- 
sarily ; see Meyer. 


3. g. It may be considered as breviloquence also, when a word 
which should have a clause of its own is directly appended (or 
even prefixed) to a clause as an apposition ; e.g. 2 Tim. ii. 14; 
Rom. viii. 3 etc. (see § 59, 9 p. 583) and (according to the usual 
reading) Mark vii. 19 εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίξον 
πάντα τὰ βρώματα. Akin to this is the proleptic use of adjectiva 
effectus (in a sort of apposition), as in Soph. Oed. Col. 1202 τῶν 
σῶν ἀδέρκτων ὀμμάτων τητώμενος for ὥςτε γενέσθαι ἄδερκτα. 
This usage is not merely poetic and oratorical, Schaef. Demosth. 
I. 239; V. 641; Erfurdt, Soph. Antig. 786 ; Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 278; 
Heller, Soph. Oed. Col. p. 522 sqq., — but is used also in prose, Ast, 
Plat. legg. p. 150sq.; Plat. polit. p.592; Vic. Fritzsche, quaestion. 


550 Lucian. p. 39,57; Weber, Demosth. 497. See, in general, Meyer 
6th οἱ, de epithet. ornantt. p. 24 and Ahlemeyer Pr. on the poetic prolepsis 


τῶ of the Adject. Paderborn 1827. 4to. From the N.T. might be 


‘referred to this head, Matt. xii. 13 (ἡ yelp) ἀπεκατεστάθη ὑγιής 
(Bornem. schol. p. 39; Stallb. Plat. Protag. p. 76; my Simonis 
Ρ. 262), Rom. i. 21 ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία, 2 Cor. 
iv. 4 θεὸς ἐτύφλωσε τὰ νοήματα TOV ἀπίστων, 1 Thess. iii. 13 
στηρίξαι τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν. ἀμέμπτους etc., Phil. ili. 21 μετα- 
σχηματίσει τὸ σῶμα... ἡμῶν σύμμορφον τῷ σώματι etc. (where 
some Codd. subjoin after ἡμῶν : εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτόν), 1 Cor. i. 8. 
This construction, however, is hardly admissible, at least in respect 
to Rom. i. and 2 Cor. iv. In the former passage the import of 
ἀσύνετος (having reference to ἐματαιώθησαν preceding) is less 
strong than that of σκοτίζεσθαι (as Flatt perceived), and in 2 Cor. 
Paul probably conceives of enlightenment as proceeding from a 
general faith in Christ. Because they did not turn to Christ, but 
at once rejected him, they did not obtain enlightenment. 


With the instances first adduced must be classed also Luke xxiv. 47 


ἔδει παθεῖν Χριστὸν ... καὶ ἀναστῆναι ... καὶ κηρυχθῆναι ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ 
: ρ ie στῆναι ... καὶ κηρυχ Ὁ ὀνόμ. 


G47 μετάνοιαν, ... ἀρξάμενον ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλήμ; where the participle (as frequently 


ἐξόν, παρόν Vig. p. 329) is used absolutely and impersonally: whilst (so 
that) it was begun, cf. Her. 8, 91 ἀπὸ δὲ ἸΠοσειδηΐου πόλιος... ἀρξάμενον 
ἀπὸ ταύτης μέχρι Αἰγύπτου ... πεντήκοντα Kal τριηκόσια τάλαντα φόρος ἣν, 
see J. L. Schlosser, vindicat. Ν. T. locor., quor. integritatem J. Marcland. 
suspectam reddere non dubitayit (Hamb. 1732. 4to.) p. 18sq. This 
English critic (ad Lysiam p. 653, Reiske VI.) wanted to read ἀρξαμένων. 

A sort of breviloquence occurs in Acts i. 21 ἐν παντὶ χρόνῳ, (ἐν) ᾧ εἰς- 


a i ῸΣ 


§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 625 


ἦλθε καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς ὃ κύριος Ἰησοῦς for εἰςῆλθε ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐξῆλθε 
ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν. But such diffuseness would have been intolerable to every 
classic author also, ef. Eurip. Phoen. 536 és οἴκους εἰςῆλθε καὶ ἐξῆλθ᾽ (where 
to be sure the arrangement is more simple) and Valcken. in loc. See 
also Poppo, Thue. I. 1. 289. 

Note. In Acts x. 39 there would in like manner be a brachylogy in the 
words καὶ ἡμεῖς μάρτυρες πάντων dv ἐποίησεν ..., Ov καὶ (the reading 
according to the best authorities [Cod. Sin. also]) ἀνεῖλον κρεμάσαντες ἐπὶ 
ξύλου, if the meaning were: we are witnesses of all that he did, also of this, 
that they put him to death. But this acceptation is not necessary. Besides, 
whatever opinion others may hold, καί here means nothing else than 
etiam (adeo), and the rendering tamen (Kiihnél) is in this connection 
very doubtful. Likewise Luke xxiv. 21 τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει σήμερον, 
cf. 2 Cor. xii. 14; xiii. 1, could only be regarded as a brachylogy by taking 
German as the standard. In Greek the numeral was considered simply 
as a predicative adjunct, cf. Achill. Tat. 7,11 Jac. τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν 
γέγονεν ἀφανής, Dion. Hal. IV. 2095 τριακοστὸν ἔτος τοῦτο ἀνεχόμεθα ete. 
see Bornem. Luc. p. 161 and on analogous cases Krii. 237. Further, 
there is no brachylogy in 1 Cor. i. 12 ἕκαστος ὑμῶν λέγει" ἐγὼ μέν εἶμι 
Παύλου, ἐγὼ δὲ ᾿Απολλώ, ἐγὼ δὲ Κηφᾶ, ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ. In these four 581 
statements Paul intended to comprehend all the declarations current in ‘th ed 
the church respecting religious partisanship ; each uses one of the following 501 
expressions. Cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 26. Lastly, 1 Cor. vi. 11 ταῦτά τινες ἦτε, a 
rightly understood, contains no brachylogy, see § 58, 3 p. 513. 

4. But the Greek language has a method of blending sentences 
and parts of sentences so as to give discourse still greater com- 
pactness and conciseness, viz. by means of what is called Attraction 
(Bttm. Gr. ὃ 538, 1), which can be termed a species of brachylogy 
only under one point of view. The name of Attraction, as is well 
known, has been given by modern grammarians to that mode of 
expression by means of which two portions of discourse (especially 
clauses), logically (in sense) connected, are also grammatically 
(formally) blended. A word (or assemblage of words), which 
properly belongs to but one of these portions (clauses), is gram- 648 
matically extended to the other, and so applies to both at once 
(to the one clause, logically, and to the other, grammatically), as 
urbem, quam statuo, vestra est; where urbs properly belongs to 
vestra est (for there are two propositions: wrbs vestra est, and 
quam statuo), but is attracted by the relative clause and incorpo- 
rated into it, so as now to belong to both clauses, logically to vestra 
est, and grammatically to quam statuo. See Hm. Vig. p. 891 sqq.,! 

1 Hm. as above: Est attractio in eo posita, si quid eo, quod simul ad duas orationis 


partes refertur, ad quarum alteram non recte refertur, ambas in unam conjungit. Cf. 
79 


626 § 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 


in particular G. T. A. Kriiger, gramm. Untersuch. 3 Theil. The 
copious diversity of this mode of expression encountered in Greek . 
authors, does not, indeed, occur in the N. T.; yet even there we 
find not a few instances of attraction which were not recognized 
as such by the earlier expositors, and which, to say the least, 
created no small difficulty in interpretation (see e.g. W. Bowyer, 
Conjectur: I. 147). 

5. Attraction in general, so far as it affects the connection of 
sentences or clauses, may be reduced to three principal sorts: 
Hither, 1. something is attracted from the dependent by the prin- 
cipal clause; or, 2. the principal clause transfers something to 
the dependent (accessory) clause; or, 3. two clauses, predicated 
of one and the same subject, are blended into one. 

The 1st sort comprehends such constructions as the following : 

a. 1 Cor. xvi. 15 οἴδατε τὴν οἰκίαν Στεφανᾶ ὅτι ἐστὶν ἀπαρχὴ 
τῆς ᾿Αχαΐας, Acts ix. 20 ἐκήρυσσεν τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς 
τοῦ θεοῦ. This is very frequent, when objective clauses follow a 
verb of observing, knowing, showing, or declaring, as Mark xi. 32 ; 
xii. 34; Acts iii. 10; iv. 138; xiii. 82; xv. 86; xvi. 3; xxvi. 5; 
1 Cor. iii. 20; xiv. 37; 2 Cor. xii. 3f.; 1 Thess. ii. 1; 2 Thess. 

582 ii. 4; Jno. iv. 85; v. 42; vii. 27; viii. 54 (Arrian. Al. 7,15, T) ; 
ἮΝ οἱ. xi. 31; Rev. xvii. 8 (Gen. i. 4; 1 Mace. xiii. 53; 2 Mace. ii. 1; 
1 Kings v. 3; xi. 28, etc.). Also when interrogative clauses follow, 

552 as Luke iv. 34 οἷδά oe, ris ef, Mark i. 24 (see Heupel and Fr. in 
6th el. loc. ; Boissonade, Philostr. epp. p. 143), Luke xix. 8 ἐδεῖν τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν, 
tis ἐστι, cf. Schaef. ind. Aesop. p. 127;1 Jno. vii. 27 τοῦτον 
οἴδαμεν, πόθεν ἐστίν (Kypke in loc.), Acts xv. 86 ἐπισκεψώμεθα 
τοὺς ἀδελφούς... πῶς ἔχουσι, 2 Cor. xiii. 5; Jno. xiii. 28 
(Achill. Tat. 1,19; Theophr. char. 21; Philostr. ep. 64). And 

the same form of anticipation occurs from clauses with ἵνα, μή ete. 
_,649 Col. iv. 17 βλέπε τὴν διακονίαν, iva αὐτὴν πληροῖς, Rev. iii. 9 ποιήσω 
| αὐτούς, ἵνα ἥξουσι, Gal. vi. 1 σκοπῶν σεαυτόν, μὴ Kal od πειρασθῆς, 
iv. 11 φοβοῦμαι ὑμᾶς, μήπως εἰκῆ κεκοπίακα εἰς ὑμᾶς (cf. Diod. 5. 

4, 40 τὸν ἀδελφὸν εὐλαβεῖσθαι, μήποτε .. . ἐπίθηται τῇ βασιλείᾳ, 
Soph. Oed. R. 760 δέδοικ᾽ ἐμαυτόν ... μὴ πόλλ᾽ ἄγαν εἰρημέν᾽ ἦ μοι, 
Thue. 3, ὅ8 ; Ignat. ad Rom. I. φοβοῦμαι τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην, μὴ 
αὐτή με ἀδικήσῃ, Varro R. R. 8, 10, 6; Caes. b. gall. 1, 89 ; οἵ, 
Kri. 5.164 1.). In the Passive 1 Cor. xv. 12 Χριστὸς κηρύσσεται 


Kriig. as above, 5. 39f. Many draw a distinction between assimilation and attraction, 
cf. Hand, Lat. Styl. 376 ff. 
11 Cor. xv. 2 does not come under this head, see § 61,7 p. 561. 


§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 627 


ὅτι ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγήγερται. See, in general, J. A. Lehmann de graec. 
ling. transp. (Danz. 1832. 4to.) p. 18 sqq.; Schwartz, de soloec. 
p. 97.1. As to Hebr. see Gesen. Lgb. 854. 

b. Rom. i. 22 φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοὶ ἐμωράνθησαν, 2 Pet. ii. 21 
κρεῖττον ἣν αὐτοῖς μὴ ἐπεγνωκέναι.... ἢ ἐπιγνοῦσιν ἐπιστρέψαι 
etc. ὃ 44, 2 p. 320; Kiihner 11. 855. This sort of attraction has 
not been adopted in Acts xv. 22, 25 (Elsner, obs. I. 428 sq.) ; 
xxvi. 20; Heb. ii.10; 1 Pet. iv.3; Lukei. 74; cf. Bremi, Aeschin. 
fals. leg. p. 196. 

c. Acts xvi. 84 ἠγαλλιάσατο πεπιστευκὼς τῷ θεῷ, 1 Cor. 
xiv. 18 εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ πάντων ὑμῶν μᾶλλον γλώσσαις λαλῶν 
(var.), see § 45, 4 p. 845. 

d. The most simple attraction, but one of very δή δος occur- 
rence, is that in which a relative, instead of being put in the case 
(Acc.) required by the verb of the relative clause, is made to 
correspond to the verb of the principal clause, and consequently 
is put in the case governed by it: Jno. ii. 22 ἐπίστευσαν τῷ λόγῳ 
ᾧ εἶπεν (for dv), see ὃ 24, 1 p. 163. 

e. Lastly, under this head would come 1 Pet. iv. 3 dpxerds ὁ 
παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν κατειργάσθαι, if, with 
Wahl, we were to resolve it thus: ἀρκετόν ἐστιν ἡμῖν, τὸν χρόνον... 
κατειργ. cf. Bttm. 8 158,1, 7. But there is no need of such nicety. 

On the other hand it should not be said that in Phil. i. 7 δίκαιον 
ἐμοὶ τοῦτο φρονεῖν etc. attraction is neglected (δίκαιός εἰμι τ. 
φρον.) Mtth. 756, for the Greeks also use δίκαιόν ἐστι with the 
Infin. impersonally ; only they are less accustomed to connect 
with it the Dat. of the person, than to connect the personal word 
with the Infin. and put it in the Acc. Her. 1, 39. The former is 
the more simple and natural construction. 

2) The simplest form in which a subordinate clause exerts an 583 
attraction on the principal clause is when the relative pronoun, ed 
which should agree in number and gender with the noun of the 
principal clause, agrees in these respects with the noun of the 
subordinate clause; as, 1 Tim. iii-15 ἐν οἴκῳ θεοῦ, ἥτις ἐστὶν 
ἐκκλησία, Rom. ix. 24 (σκεύη ἐλέους) ods καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς. In 
the following cases the attraction is carried still farther : 


1 Anticipation is properly to be admitted only when the author applied beforehand 
to the subject the subsequent predication in the accessory clause. On the contrary, 
particularly when parenthetic clauses intervene, e.g. Acts xv. 36 the construction 
ἐπισκεψώμεθα τοὺς ἀδελφούς may at first have been alone intended, and πῶς ἔχουσιν 
subjoined merely for further explanation. 


650 


553 
6th ed. 


651 


628 § 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 


a. 1 Cor. x. 16 τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ 
σώματος etc., Jno. vi. 29 ἵνα πιστεύσητε εἰς ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος, 
see ὃ 24, 2 ἃ. pp. 164, 166, or Mark vi. 16 ὃν ἐγὼ ἀπεκεφάλισα 
᾿Ιωάννην, οὗτός ἐστιν, see ὃ 24, 2 b. p. 164, cf. Matt. vii. 9. 

b. 1 Jno. ii. 25 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπαγγελία, ἣν αὐτὸς ἐπηγγείλατο 
ἡμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον for ζωή in apposition to ἐπαγγελία 
(see 8 59, 7 p. 530), Philem. 10 f.; Rom. iv. 24 ἀλλὰ καὶ δι’ ἡμᾶς, οἷς 
μέλλει λογίζεσθαι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν etc. (Rev. xvii. 8 var. ?). 
Luther understood Phil. iii. 18 also thus. Cf. further, Fr. Mr. 
828; Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 216; Il. 146; Kiihn. I. 515. 

c. Matt. x. 25 ἀρκετὸν τῷ μαθητῇ, ἵνα γένηται ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος 
αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὁ δοῦλος ὡς ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ for καὶ τῷ δούλῳ (ἵνα γέν.) 
ὡς ὁ Kup. ete. 

ἃ. Rom. iii. 8 τί ἔτει ἐγὼ ὡς ἁμαρτωλὸς κρίνομαι ; καὶ μή, καθὼς 
βλασφημούμεθα καὶ καθὼς φασί τινες ἡμᾶς λέγειν, ὅτε ποιήσωμεν 
τὰ κακά, iva etc., where the apostle ought to have made ποιεῖν 
κακά etc. dependent on καὶ μή, but, misled by the parenthesis, 
appends it to λέγειν in oratio recta. The same construction occurs 
not unfrequently in Greek authors, particularly in connection 
with a relative clause, see Hm. Vig. 743; Kriig. Unters. 457 ff. ; 
Dissen, Dem. cor. 177, and on the Latin usage, Beier, Cic. off. I. 
50 sq.; Grotefend, ausf. Gr. 462 f. 

3) Two interrogative clauses following one another as predicates 
of one and the same subject are blended into one; as, Acts xi. 17 
ἐγὼ δὲ τίς ἤμην δυνωτὸς κωλῦσαι τὸν θεόν ; but I, who was I? had 
I power to withstand God? Cf. Cic. N. D. 1, 27, 18 quid censes, 
si ratio esset in belluis, non suo quasque generi plurimum tributuras 
fuisse? Luke xix. 15 tis τί διεπραωγματεύσατο; Mark xv. 24 
tis τί ἄρῃ; see Hm. Soph. Aj. 1164; Eurip. Io 807 ; Lob. Soph. 
Aj. 454 sq.; Ellendt, lexic. Soph. Il. 824; Weber, Demosth. p. 348 
(as to Latin, Grotefend, ausf. Gram. 11. 96; Kritz, Sallust. I. 211). 
For other modes of blending interrogative clauses by attraction, 
see Kiithner 11. 588 f. An interrogative and a relative clause 
are blended in Luke xvi. 2 τί τοῦτο ἀκούω περὶ σοῦ ; quid est quod 
de te audio, see Bornem. in loc. Similar is Acts xiv. 15 τί ταῦτα 
ποιεῖτε; 


Luke i. 73 also I consider as an attraction: μνησθῆναι διαθήκης ἁγίας 
αὑτοῦ, ὅρκον (for ὅρκου) ὃν dpooe etc. Others, as Kiihndl, find here a 
double construction of μνησθῆναι, which in the Sept. is also construed with 
the Acc. Gen. ix. 16; Exod. xx. 8, a view previously adopted by an 
anonymous writer in the Alt. und Neu. for 1735. 5. 336f. 2 Pet. ii. 12 


§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 629 


ἐν οἷς ἀγνοοῦσι βλασφημοῦντες is probably to be resolved: ἐν τούτοις, ἃ 584 
ἀγνοοῦσι, βλασῴ. A similar construction, βλασφ. εἴς τινα, is of frequent Tthed 
occurrence (ὃ 32, 1 p. 222), ef. 5 57m 2 Sam. xxiii. 9, 2 >bp Isa. viii. 21 

(to which perhaps may be compared also μυκτηρίζειν ἔν τινι 3 Esr. i. 49 ; 

see, on the other hand, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 16), though ἀγνοεῖν ἔν τίνι 
also is not without example in later writers; see Fabricii Pseudepigr. 

ἘΠΕ 717. 


6. But attraction is also confined to a single clause. In this 
case it is especially noticeable that two local prepositions are 
blended into one, and thus the clause gains in terseness (Hm. 
Vig. 893), Luke xi. 13 ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει πνεῦμα ἅγιον 
for ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν οὐρανῷ δώσει ἐξ οὐρανοῦ Tv. ἅγ., [Matt. xxiv. 17 
τὰ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ for τὰ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας, Col. iv. 16 
τὴν ἐκ Δαοδικείας ἐπιστολὴν ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε (not the letter 
written from Laodicea, but) the letter written to Laodicea and 
sent again from Laodicea.! Cf. besides, Luke ix. 61 (Mark v. 26). 554 
So too with adverbs of place, as an instance of which may be δὲ δ 
considered Luke xvi. 26 οἱ ἐκεῖθεν (Franke, Demosth. p. 13). 
With passages of the former class may also be numbered Heb. 
xili. 24 ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας (1.6. οἱ ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιταλίᾳ 
ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας) ; yet it might be also rendered: those from Italy, 
the Italian Christians (who were with the writer of the letter). 
A critical argument concerning the place where the letter was 
written should never have been found in these words. On the 
other hand 2 Cor. ix. 2 and Phil. iv. 22 are also intelligible with- 
out assuming an attraction. Such condensed expression is very 
frequent in Greek authors, cf. Xen. Cyr. 7, 2,5 ἁρπασόμενοι τὰ 
ἐκ τῶν οἰκιῶν, Thuc. 2,80 ἀδυνάτων ὄντων ξυμβοηθεῖν τῶν ἀπὸ 
θαλάσσης ᾿Ακαρνάνων, Demosth. Phil. III. 46 ete. τοὺς ἐκ Σεῤῥίου 
τείχους ... στρατιώτας ἐξέβαλεν, Paus. 4, 18, 1 ἀποῤῥίψααι τὰ ἀπὸ 
τῆς τραπέζης, Demosth. Timocr. 488 b.; Xen. An. 1, 2,18; Plat. 
apol. p. 32b.; Thue. 3,5; 7,70; Lucian. eunuch. 12; Theophr. 
char. 2; Xen. Eph. 1,10; Isocr. ep. 7 p. 1012 (Judith viii. 17 ; 
Sus. 26). See Fischer, Plat. Phaed. p. 818 sq. ; Schaef. Demosth. 
IV. 119; Hm. Soph. Electr. 135 and Aeschyl. Agam. vs. 516; 
Ast, Theophr. char. p. 61 ; Poppo, Thue. I. I. 176sq. ; III. II. 389; 
Weber, Demosth. 191, 446. 

7. On the other hand, sometimes a clause is grammatically 652 
resolved into two, which are connected by καί: Rom. vi. 17 yapus 


1 Ignorance of the frequency of this usage has determined several expositors, in spite 
of the context, to adhere to the translation the epistle (written by Paul) from Laodicea. 


630 § 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 


τῷ θεῷ, ὅτι ἦτε δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ὑπηκούσατε δέ etc. (for which 
ὄντες ποτὲ δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὑπηκούσατε ἐκ καρδίας might have 

585 been used),! Luke xxiv. 18 σὺ μόνος παροικεῖς ‘Iepovcar. καὶ οὐκ 

th el. ἔγνως, where, in a language to which the participial construction 
is peculiarly congenial, it would have been more correct to say: 
σὺ μόνος παροικῶν ‘lep. οὐκ ἔγνως, Matt. xi. 25 probably also 1 Cor. 
iv. 4. See Fr. Mt. pp. 287, 413; Gesen. on Isa. v. 4. Cf. with 
this, what Bttm. § 136, 1 has remarked on clauses connected by 
μέν and δέ ; and as to parataxis in general, Kiihner II. 415f. In 
some of these passages, however, the former construction may 
have been adopted with the design of giving to the first clause its 
full prominence. This becomes still more apparent from Jno. iii. 19 
αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ κρίσις, ὅτι TO φῶς ἐλήλυθεν εἰς TOV κόσμον Kal ἠγάπησαν 
οἱ ἄνθρωποι μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος etc., see BCrus. and in particular 
Liicke in loc., ef. also vi. 50. Thus also John in vii. 4 οὐδείς τι ἐν 
κρυπτῷ ποιεῖ καὶ ζητεῖ αὐτὸς ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ εἶναι prefers to com- 
bine in parallelism the two irreconcilable acts (nobody does both 
at the same time), than to write οὐδεὶς... ποιεῖ ζητῶν αὐτός ete. 
On Matt. xviii. 21 see above, § 45, note 2 p. 355. But in 
1 Pet. iv. 6 the two clauses dependent on ἵνα are to be regarded 
as co-ordinate ; only in this connection κρίνεσθαι must be under- 
stood correctly. 


555 Corresponding to this idiom, only more limited, would be the figure of 
6th ed, Speech ἕν διὰ δυοῖν (hendiadys), by which instead of one substantive with 
. an adjective or Genitive (of quality) two substantives are used, the quality 
of the thing being thus for the sake of emphasis raised to a grammatical 
equality with the thing itself: pateris libamus et auro, i.e. pateris aureis. 
This is substantially an appositive relation: pateris et quidem auro, pat. 

h. 6. auro, see Fr. exc. 4ad Mt.; Teipel in the Archiy f. ἃ. Stud. ἃ. neuern 
Sprachen 10 Bd. 1 Heft. For a more exact view of the subject, see 

C. F. Miiller in Schneidewin, Philol. VII. 297 ff. Expositors have in fact 
asserted the existence of this figure in the N. T. (Glass. philol. sacra I. 

18 sq.), and some of them in the most unmeasured and injudicious terms 
(Heinrichs), e.g. Matt. iii..11; Acts xiv.13; Jno.i. 14; iii.5; Heb. vi. 10. 

But even a sifted collection of examples (Wilke, Rhet. 5. 149) does not 
furnish one that is unquestionable. Either the two notions connected 
together are really distinct, as in 2 Tim. iv. 1; 2 Pet. i. 16; or the second 


1 Others, as finally ΕἾ. also, lay the stress on the Preterite ἦτε, that ye WERE (that 
this is past); and this exposition may urge the position of ἦτε in its favor. But on 
this interpretation Paul would at any rate have expressed himself somewhat artificially, 
since ἦτε primarily designates their state only as having formerly existed, not from the 
present point of view as terminated, (ye were servants, not ye have been). 


§ 67, ABNORMAL RELATION OF INDIVIDUAL WORDS. 631 


substantive is epexegetical (consequently, supplementary), as in (Rom. 653 
i. 5) Actsi. 25; xxiii.6; Eph. vi. 18, cf. also 2 Cor. viii. 4 (καί and indeed, 
namely p. 437 c.), —a construction which, even though of the same genus 
with hendiadys, is of a different species. (Interpreters have wholly erred 

in wanting to find a hendiadys in the verb also, e.g. Phil. iv. 18.) 


§ 67. ABNORMAL RELATION OF INDIVIDUAL WORDS IN A 586 
SENTENCE (HYPALLAGE). τὰ ed, 


1. Occasionally an irregularity may be noticed in the relation 
of individual words in a sentence. This occurs sometimes as 
constructio ad sensum (very frequent in Greek authors),—an 
irregularity which, to the reader who attentively observes the 
connection, cannot render the meaning either difficult or doubtful ; 
at other times it may be characterized as an inadvertence on the 
part of the writer, who, busied with his thoughts, disregards 
accuracy of expression. 

We notice, 

a. The constructio ad sensum (πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμενον or κατὰ 
σύνεσιν), examples of which have already been adduced in con- 
nection with the predicate and attributive § 58, and in connection 
with the pronouns ὃ 21 (cf. also Rey. iii. 4). 

b. The subject is omitted, and has to be indirectly supplied 
from the preceding context: 1 Cor. vii. 36 γαμείτωσαν viz. the 
two young persons who have associated together; as inferred 
from the preceding mention of a marriageable daughter. In Gal. 
i. 23 μόνον ἀκούοντες ἦσαν the notion of church members is to be 
gathered from ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις vs. 22 (cf. Caes. gall. 4,14). There 
would be a similar instance in 1 Tim. ii. 15, if in ἐὰν μείνωσιν ἐν 
πίστει the word τέκνα were to be supplied from texvoyovias pre- 
ceding. This is grammatically admissible, cf. Plat. legge. 10 
Ρ. 886 d., where γενόμενοι is referred to θεογονίαν, as if the expres- 
sion θεῶν γένεσις had been employed, see Zell, Aristot. ethic. 
p- 209 ; Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 29, 160; Kiister (Reisig) Xen. Oecon. 
p- 247 eq., yet see above, ὃ 58, 4 p.516. In 1 Tim. τ. 4 probably 556 
for μανθανέτωσαν the subject χῆραι is to be deduced from the om 
collective tis χήρα, see Huther in loc., as a Plur. often refers to 654 
τίς (Rey. xiv. 11), see Herbst, Xen. mem. p. 50. On the other 
hand, in Rom. xiii. 6 λειτουργοὶ θεοῦ εἰσιν refers to οἱ ἄρχοντες Vs. 3. 

c. Sometimes there is a sudden change of subject: Jno. xix. 4f. 
ἐξῆλθεν οὖν πάλιν ὁ Πιλᾶτος καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς" "Ide ἄγω ὑμῖν 


632. 8867. ABNORMAL RELATION OF INDIVIDUAL WORDS. 


αὐτὸν ἔξω ... ἐξῆλθεν οὖν ὁ ᾿Τησοῦς tw... καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς viz. 
Pilate, cf. xix. 38; Luke xix. 4 προδραμὼν .. . ἀνέβη ἐπὶ συκομορέαν 
(Ζακχαῖος), ἵνα ἴδῃ αὐτόν (Ἰησοῦν), ὅτι ἐκείνης ἤμελλε CInoods) 
διέρχεσθαι, cf. xiv. 5; xv..15; xvii. 2; Mark ix. 20; Acts vi. 6; 
x.4; Rom. x. 14f.; Judith v. 8. On1 Jno. v. 16, see § 58,9 
p. 523. In Greek prose authors this transition from one subject 
to another is not uncommon: Her. 6, 30 ὁ δὲ (Histiaeus) οὔτ᾽ ἂν 
ἔπαθε κακὸν οὐδέν, δοκέειν ἐμοί, ἀπῆκέ (Darius) τ᾽ ἂν αὐτῷ τὴν αἰτίην, 
Demosth. c. Phorm. p. 587 a. ὃς οὐκ ἔφασκεν οὔτε τὰ χρήματα ἐντε- 
θεῖσθαι τοῦτον (Phormion), οὔτε τὸ χρυσίον ἀπειληφέναι (Lampis), 
587 Plutarch. Poplic. compar. 5 ... προςέλαβεν (Poplicola) ὅσα δόντα 
Τὰ of. ἀγαπητὸν ἣν νικῆσαι" καὶ yap τὸν πόλεμον διέλυσε (Porsena) etc., 
vit. Lysand. 24 ἄλλο δ᾽ οὐδὲν ἐχρήσατο (Agesil.) αὐτῷ πρὸς τὸν 
πόλεμον " ἀλλὰ τοῦ Χρόνου διελθόντος ἀπέπλευσεν (Lysand.) εἰς 
τὴν Σπάρτην etc., Ages. 40 τὴν βασιλείαν ᾿Αρχίδαμος ... παρέλαβε, 
καὶ (sc. αὕτη) διέμεινε τῷ γένει, Artax. 15 τοῦ κροτάφου τυχὼν 
κατέβαλον τὸν ἄνδρα, καὶ τέθνηκεν (οὗτος) etc., Lysias caed. Eratosth. 
10 ἵνα τὸν τυτθὴν αὐτῷ (παιδίῳ) διδῷ καὶ μὴ βοᾷ (τὸ παιδ.). CF. 
Poppo, observ. in Thuc. p. 189; Schaef. Demosth. ΤΥ. 214 and 
Plutarch. TV. 281, 331; V. 86, 295; Stallb. Plat. Gorg. 215; 
Maetzner, Antiphon 145; Schoem. Is. 294. ΑΒ to Hebrew usage, 
see Gesen. Leb. 803. 

d. Words referring to something antecedent are used in a loose 
reference. On αὐτός see § 22,3 p.145sq. So in Gal. ii. 2 αὐτοῖς 
refers to “Ιεροσόλυμα vs. 1, but the inhabitants are meant. Sim- 
ilarly in Acts xvii. 16; 2 Pet. iii. 4 αὐτοῦ is to be understood of 
Christ, who has not been expressly named, but is intimated in 
παρουσία. In Jno. xv. 6 αὐτά refers to the Sing. τὸ κλῆμα, which 
is in apposition to εἴ τις. In Acts iv. T αὐτούς, in a different way, 
refers, not to αὐτῶν vs. 5, but to vss. 1 and 2. In Acts x. T αὐτῷ 
refers, not to Simon vs. 6, but to Cornelius vss. 1-5, as is indicated 
even by some MSS., which read τῷ Κορνηλίῳ, a manifest gloss. 
In Acts vii. 24 πατάξας τὸν Αὐγύπτιον, no Egyptian had been pre- 
viously mentioned ; the ἀδικῶν is merely hinted in ἀδικούμενον, 
and that he was an Egyptian is assumed as known from the con- 
nection. Lastly, in 2 Jno. 7 οὗτος refers to πολλοὶ πλάνοι, and 
sums up in one person the plurality. Vice versa, in 1 Jno. iv. 4 
αὐτούς refers to ἀντιχρίστου vs. 3. The reference of αὐτοῦ in Jno. 

655 xx. T, of αὐτόν vs. 15, and of ἐκεῖνοι Jno. vii. 45 to the nearest 
subject, is more simple, see Ὁ. 157. It is an inaccuracy of con- 
struction also when a pronoun, especially a relative, serves in a 


ὁ 67. ABNORMAL RELATION OF INDIVIDUAL WORDS. 633 


single form for two cases 1 Cor. ii. 9 ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ ods 
οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν avOp. οὐκ ἀνέβη Sept. Fundamentally 
this falls under the class of constructions treated of in § 64, I. 1 
p. 581sqq. The like occurs frequently in Latin also, Kritz, 
Sallust. I. p. 67; IL. p. 295 sq. 


e. Of two parallel members of a sentence, the first is sometimes ex- 
pressed in such terms as to appear to comprehend the second, though 
from the nature of the case that is impossible: Acts xxvii. 22 ἀποβολὴ 557 
ψυχῆς οὐδεμία ἔσται ἐξ ὑμῶν πλὴν τοῦ πλοίου would literally mean: there Sth ed 
shall be no loss of life except of the ship ; instead of which should have 
been said: there shall be no loss of life, only loss of the ship. Similar is 
Gal. i. 19 ἕτερον τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ ᾿Ιάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ 
κυρίου, if, with Fr. Matt. p. 482, we choose to render it: aliwm apostolum 
non vidi, sed vidi Jacobum etc., that is, so that it would be necessary 588 
merely to repeat εἶδον with Ἰάκ. ; yet see my Comment. and Mey. in loc. Τὰ οἰ, 
Nearly the same use of εἰ μή occurs in Rev. xxi. 27 οὐ μὴ εἰςέλθῃ .. . πᾶν 
κοινὸν καὶ ὃ ποιῶν βδέλυγμα ... εἰ μὴ of γεγραμμένοι ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς, 
where the γεγραμμένοι are not to be counted under πᾶν κοινόν. The 
meaning is rather: nothing profane shall enter ; only they who are written 
ete. shall enter, ix. 4. Cf. 1 Kings iii. 18 οὐκ ἔστιν οὐθεὶς μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν παρὲξ 
ἀμφοτέρων ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ. 

2. The very structure of the sentence has been disturbed by 
the inadvertence of the writer in Luke xxiv. 27 ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ 
Macéws καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν προφητῶν διηρμήνευεν αὐτοῖς ἐν πάσαις 
ταῖς γραφαῖς τὰ περὶ αὑτοῦ. Here it can hardly be assumed that 
to Moses and the prophets are opposed certain other books of the 
Ο. T. to which Jesus passed, nor, with Kiihndl, that Jesus first 
quoted the statements of the prophets, then, as a separate pro- 
ceeding, began to interpret them (see van Hengel, annot. p. 104) ; 
but probably Luke meant to say: Jesus, beginning from (with) 
Moses, went through all the prophets; see also BCrus. in loc. 
Instead of this, having ἀπό in mind, he annexes πάντες προφῆται 
in the Genitive. Meyer’s device is unsatisfactory. In connection 
with this passage may be taken Acts iii. 24 πάντες of προφῆται ἀπὸ 
Σαμουὴλ, καὶ τῶν καθεξῆς ὅσοι ἐλάλησαν Kal κατήγγειλαν etc. 
Luke might have said, all the prophets, Samuel (as the first) and all 
his successors (in order) etc., or, all the prophets from Samuel 
downwards, as many of them etc. As the words now stand, they 


1JIn Heb. xii. 25 εἰ ἐκεῖνοι οὐκ ἐξέφυγον... πολὺ μᾶλλον ἡμεῖς etc. those who 
(Kiihn6l also) render πολὺ μᾶλλον by multo minus repeat for the apodosis ἐκφευξόμεθα 
alone. But the phrase retains its signification multo magis, and the entire negative 
notion οὐκ éxpevé. is to be repeated after it. Cf. Caes. gall. 1, 47. 
80 


634 67. ABNORMAL RELATION OF INDIVIDUAL WORDS. 


656 contain an unmistakable tautology. For even the division, pro- 
posed by Casaubon and adopted by a host of expositors (including 
Valckenaer), τῶν καθ. ὅσοι ἐλάλ. does not help the passage 
essentially. Still we have all the prophets from Samuel on, and 
then, as if not already included in the foregoing, the whole succes- 
sion that followed Samuel and prophesied. The expedient that 
van Hengel (as above, p. 103) suggests, supplying ἕως ᾿Ιωάννου 

558 (Matt. xi. 13), is arbitrary, and gives only the equally inappropri-- 

διὰ οὐ, ate sense: from Samuel and the succeeding prophets . .. to John, 
whilst it was to be expected that two boundaries of this series 
would be mentioned. Hengel thus gains at last merely Luke’s 
brachylogy (already explained p. 621): ἄρχεσθαι amd... ἕως. ᾿ 

3. Formerly critics went much farther in discovering such inac- 
curacies resulting from inadvertence. Namely, 
a. A false reference of the attributive to the substantive, affecting 

589 the grammatical form of the former, was thought to exist not 

Τὰ οὐ, only in Acts v. 20 τὰ ῥήματα τῆς ζωῆς ταύτης (for ταῦτα), Rom. 
vii. 24 see above, p. 237 sq., but also (Bengel on Luke xxii. 20; 
Bauer, Philol. Thucyd. Paul. p. 263) Eph. ii. 2 κατὰ τὸν ἄρχοντα 
τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος, τοῦ πνεύματος etc. instead of τὸ πνεῦμα, 
iii. 2; 2 Cor. iii. 7; Luke viii. 82; xxii. 20; and this supposed 
species of hypallage! was supported by examples from ancient 
authors. In a sentence of some length, containing a variety of 
relations, such inaccuracy, especially on the part of an unpractised 
writer, would be quite possible. In the poets also passages might 
be pointed out, which without some such assumption admit of 
only a forced interpretation, cf. Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 73 sq.; Hm. 
Vig. 891 and Soph. Philoct. p. 202 and Eurip. Hel. p. 7; Krier, 
grammat. Untersuch. III. 87 f. But in prose such instances are 
extremely rare (Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 161; Bornem. Xen. Anab, 
p- 206; Heinichen, Euseb. II. 175) ; in the N. T. there is not a 
single one that is unquestionable, see F. Woken, pietas crit. in | 
hypallagas bibl. Viteb. 1718. 8vo. Luke viii. 32 disposes of itself. 
As to Eph. iii. 2, see my Progr. de Hypallage et Hendiadyi in N. T. 
libris. Erlang. 1824. 4to. p. 15 and Harless in loc. In Eph. ii. 2, 
where the apostle might most easily have strayed from the correct 
construction, πνεῦμα is that spirit which pervades and rules men 
of the world, and of which Satan is regarded as the lord and 
master, see Mey. in loc. Heinichen, Euseb. II. 99, insists on the 


1 Cf. Glass. philol. sacr. I. 652 sqq.; Jani, ars poet. lat. p. 258sqq. On the other 
hand, cf. Elster, de Hypallage. Helmst. 1845. 4to. 


/ 


. oi 


§ 67. ABNORMAL RELATION OF INDIVIDUAL WORDS. 635 


existence of hypallage. In 2 Cor. iii. Τ εἰ ἡ διακονία τοῦ θανάτου 657 
ἐν γράμμασιν ἐντετυπωμένη ἐν λίθοις, Paul might in contrast 
with διακονία τοῦ πνεύματος have said with greater simplicity: ἡ 
διακονία τοῦ γράμματος ἐντετυπωμένου ἐν λίθοις. But the present 


. connection of the words is not incorrect. Moses’ ministry of 


death was in so far itself ἐν λίθοις ἐντετυπωμένη, as it consisted in 
communicating laws threatening and inflicting death, and in 
administering them among the people. The letter of the law 
contained the ministry which Moses had to execute. Moreover, 
there is a grammatical resemblance between this passage and Tac. 
annal. 14, 16 quod species ipsa carminum docet, non impetu et 
instinctis nec ore uno fluens. In Heb. ix. 10 ἐπικείμενα is certainly ~ 
not construed with δικαιώμασι instead of ἐπικειμένοις, but δικαυ- 
@pact is in apposition to ἐπὶ βρώμασιν etc., and ἐπικείμενα cor- 
responds to μὴ δυνάμεναι, the neuter being selected because both, 
δῶρα καὶ θυσίαι, are here included. According to the other 
reading, δικαιώματα, which is well supported [by Cod. Sin. also], 559 
ἐπικείμενα can be referred to that appositive word quite regularly, δὲ ed 
There is more appearance of irregular reference in Luke xxii. 20, 
where τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον might have been construed with 

ἐν τῷ αἵματι. But it is not probable that in so short a sentence 590 


. Luke should have employed ἐκχυνόμενον from inadvertence. It is Th ed 


more likely that, as he had connected διδόμενον with σῶμα, he 
joined. ἐκχυν. to ποτήριον, meaning the contents of the cup, and 
this metonymy is easier still than the other, τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ 
διαθήκη. This anomaly is obviously not of a grammatical, but of 
a logical kind, (although ¢o pour out a cup may be said with entire 
correctness). Yet Schulthess (on the Lord’s Supper, S. 155 f.) 
need not have grown so warm over the matter. In Heb. vi. 1 
even Kiihnél has rejected the hypallage, alleged by Palairet and 
others. On Jno. i. 14 πλήρης χάριτος etc. see § 62, 3 p. 564, 
and on 2 Cor. xi. 28 and Rev. i. 5, ὃ 59, 8 pp. 532, 533. In 2 Cor. 
iv. 17 αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης cannot be taken for αἰωνίου Bap. δόξης, 
for the reason that this would destroy the harmonious arrangement 
at which the apostle manifestly aimed (παραυτίκα, αἰώνιον, ἐλαφρόν, 
βάρος, θλίψεις, δόξα). On 1 Cor. iv. 3 see Meyer against Billroth 
and Riickert. In Acts xi. 5 εἶδον καταβαῖνον σκεῦός Tt, ὡς ὀθόνην 
μεγάλην, τέσσαρσιν ἀρχαῖς καθιεμένην etc. must not be regarded 
as an hypallage, on being compared with x. 11 (xa@séyevov) ; the 
participles may be referred with equal propriety to σκεῦος or to 
ὀθόνη. It is difficult to decide on 2 Cor. xii. 21 wy... πενθήσω 


636 § 68, REGARD TO SOUND, ETC. 


πολλοὺς τῶν προημαρτηκότων καὶ μὴ μετανοησάντων etc. We 

658 naturally ask, why not all impenitent sinners? Did Paul intend 
to say: τοὺς μὴ μετανοήσαντας ? As, however, in vs. 21 a different 
class of sins is named from that in vs. 20, we may, with Mey., 
conclude that the προημαρτηκότες are more closely characterized 
by μὴ μετανοησάντ. as those that have remained impenitent only 
in reference to sins of sensuality, mentioned immediately after. 

Ὁ. Akin to hypallage is antiptosis, which some (including 
Kihndl) find in Heb. ix. 2 πρόθεσις ἄρτων, as if for ἄρτοι προθέσεως 
(cf. as to this remarkable figure Hm. Vig. p. 890; Soph. Electr. 
Ρ. 8; Blomfield, Aeschyl. Agamemn. 148, 1360; Wyttenb. Plat. 
Phaed. p. 232), nearly as the following passages have been un- 
derstood: Plotin. Enn. 2,1 p. 97 g. πρὸς τὸ βούλημα τοῦ ἀποτε- 
λέσματος ὑπάρχειν προςήκει for πρὸς τὸ τοῦ βουλήματος ἀποτέλεσμα, 
or Thue. 1, 6 οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τῶν εὐδαιμόνων for οἱ εὐδαίμονες τῶν 
πρεσβ. (see Scholiasts). But that N. T. passage is to be rendered 
quite simply: the exposition of loaves (the sacred usage of laying 
out loaves). Valcken. even wants to take ἡ τράπεζα καὶ ἡ πρόθ. 
apt. for ἡ τράπ. τῶν ἄρτων τῆς προθ. Lastly, it is altogether 
wrong to take, as do some (including Bengel), διώκων νόμον 
δικαιοσύνης in Rom. ix. 81 for δικαιοσύνην νόμου, see Fr. in 100. 
In reference to other alleged incongruities of this description, cf. 
the instructive 1st Exc. of Fr. on Mark, p. 759 sqq. 


560 §88. REGARD TO SOUND IN THE STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES; 
6thed. ῬΡΑΒΟΝΟΜΑΒΊΑ AND PLAY UPON WORDS (ANNOMINATIO), PAR- 
501 ALLELISM, VERSE. 


Tth ed. 
1. The general euphony of the N. T. style (in which cacophony 


but rarely appears, 1 Cor. xii. 2, cf. Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 105 and paralip. 
p. 58 sq.) was not for the most part the result of design. Only, 
in regard to paronomasia and annominatio, many instances may 
have been intentional. Paronomasia,! which as is well known 
consists in the combination of words of similar sound, and is one 
of the favorite fancies of Oriental writers,? is peculiarly frequent 
in the Epistles of Paul, partly, it should seem, accidentally, and 
partly studied by the writer in his desire to impart genial liveliness 


1 See Glassii philol. sacr. I. 1335-1342 ; Ch. B. Michaelis, de paronomas. sacra. Hal. 
1737. 4to., also Lob. paralip. 501 sqq. A solid and exhaustive monograph is J. F. 
Bottcher’s de paronomasia finitimisque ei figuris Paulo Ap. frequentatis. Lips. 1823. 8vo 

2 See Verschuir, dissertat. philol. exeg. p. 172 sqq. 


§ 68, REGARD TO SOUND, ETC. 637 


to the expression, or greater emphasis to the thought; as, Luke 
xxi. 11 καὶ λεμοὶ καὶ Χοιμοὶ Ecovra (cf. the German Hunger 
und Kummer), Hesiod. opp. 226; Plutarch. Coriol. c. 18, see 
Valcken. in loc.; Acts xvii. 25 ζωὴν καὶ πνοήν (cf. the German 
leben und weben, Hiille und Fiille, Saus und Braus, rédern und 
ddern, Varr. R. R. 8, 2, 13 utrum propter oves, an propter aves, 
see Baiter, Isocr. Paneg. p. 117); Heb. νυ. 8 ἔμαθεν ἀφ᾽ ὧν 
ἔπαθεν (seine Leiden leiteten ihn zum Gehorsam, cf. Her. 1, 207), 
see Wetst. and Valcken. in loc.; Rom. xi. 17 twés τῶν κλάδων 
ἐξεκλάσθησαν. Thus, in a series of words, the paronomastic 
are placed next to each other, as in Rom. i. 29, 31 (πορνείᾳ, 
πονηρίᾳ) φθόνου, φόνου ... ἀσυνέτους, ἀσυνθέτους (Wetst. in loc.). 
In other passages words of similar derivation are placed together ; 
as, 1 Cor. ii. 13 ἐν διδακτοῖς πνεῦματος, πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ 
συγκρίνοντες, 2 Cor. viii. 22 ἐν πολλοῖς πολλάκις σπουδαῖον, ix. 8 
ἐν παντὶ πάντοτε πᾶσαν αὐτάρκειαν, Acts xxiv. 3; 2 Cor. x. 12 
αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἑαυτοὺς μετροῦντες, Rom. viii. 23 αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς 
στενάζομεν, Phil. 1. 4 (Xen. mem. 8,12, 6 δυςκολία καὶ μανία πολ- 
λάκις πολλοῖς ... ἐμπίπτουσιν, 4, 4, 4 πολλῶν πολλάκις ὑπὸ 
τῶν δικαστῶν ἀφιεμένων, An. 2, 4,10 αὐτοὶ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν ἐχώρουν, 
2,5, 7 πάντη γὰρ πάντα τοῖς θεοῖς ὕποχα καὶ πανταχῆ 
πάντων ἴσον οἱ θεοὶ κρατοῦσι, Polyb. 6,18, 6;. Athen. 8, 352 ; 
Arrian. Epict. 8, 28, 22; Synes. prov. 2, Ρ. 116 Ὁ. πάντα παν- 
ταχοῦ πάντων κακῶν ἔμπλεα ἣν, see Krii. Xen. An. 1, 9, 2; 
Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 188, 380; Boisson. Nicet. 243 ; Beier, Cic. off. 592 
I. 128; Jahn, Archiv II. 402). Matt. xxi. 41 κακοὺς κακῶς the. 
ἀπολέσει αὐτούς he will miserably destroy those miserable fellows 
(Demosth. Mid’ 413 Ὁ. εἶτα θαυμάζεις, εἰ κακὸς κακῶς ἀπολῇ, 
adv. Zenoth. 575c.; Aristophan. Plut. 65, 418; Diog. L. 2, 76; 
Alciphr. 3,10; cf. also Aeschyl. Pers. 1041; Plaut. Aulular. 1, 
1, 3 sq. and Schaef. Soph. Electr. 742; Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 471 and 561 
paralip. 8, 56 sqq.; Foertsch, de locis Lysiae p. 44).1 bth ed, 
Writers occasionally use strange or uncommon words, or forms, 
for the purpose of producing a paronomasia (Gesenius LG. 5, 858) 
e.g. Gal. v. T πείθεσθαι... ἡ πεισμονή (see my Comment. in 
loc.), ef. die Bisthiimer sind verwandelt in Wiistthiimer, die Abteien 


1 See also Doederlein, Progr. de brachylogia p. 8sq. Especially a large collection of 
such paronomastic combinations will be found in EZ. A. Diller, Progr. de consensu 
notionum qualis est in vocibus ejusd. originis diversitate formarum copulatis. Misen. 
1842. 4to. ᾿ ᾿ 


638 § 68. REGARD TO SOUND, ETC. 


660 sind nun — Raubteien (Schiller in Wallenstein’s Lager), Verbes- 
serungen nicht Verbéserungen.? 

2. Annominatio is akin to paronomasia, but differs from it in 
this: that it adds to a regard for the sound of words, a regard to 
their meaning also (as, in German: Triéume sind Schiéume) ; 
consequently for the most part it consists of antitheses, e.g. Matt. 
xvi. 18 σὺ ef Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω etc., 
Rom. v. 19 ὥςπερ διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἁμαρτωλοὶ 
κατεστάθησαν οἱ πολλοί, οὕτω καὶ διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς δίκαιοι 
κατασταθήσονται, i. 20 τὰ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ... καθορᾶται, Phil. 
iil. 2f. βλέπετε τὴν κατατομήν, ἡμεῖς γάρ ἐσμεν ἡ περιτομή 
(Diog. L. 6, 24 τὴν Εὐκλείδου σχολὴν ἔλεγε χολήν, τὴν δὲ 
Πλάτωνος διατριβὴν κατατριβήνν, iii. 12; 2 Cor. iv. 8 ἀπο- 
ρούμενοι, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐξωπορούμενοι, 2 Thess. iii. 11 μηδὲν 
ἐργαζομένους, ἀλλὰ περιεργαζομένους (cf. Seidler, Eurip. 
Troad. p. 11), 2 Cor. v. 4 ἐφ᾽ ᾧ οὐ θέλομεν ἐκδύσασθαι, ἀλλ᾽ 
ἐπενδύσασθαι, Acts viii. 30 dpa γε γινώσκεις, ἃ ἀναγινώσκεις; 
Jno. ii. 28 f. πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ... αὐτὸς δὲ 
᾿Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἐπίστευεν ἑαυτὸν αὐτοῖς, Rom. i. 28; iii. 8; xi. 17; 
xii. 8; xvi. 2; Hph. i. 23; iii. 14,19; Gal. iv. 17; 1 Cor. iii.17; 
Vi. 2; xi. 29, 31; xiv. 10; 2 Cor. iii. 2; v.21; x.3; 1Tim.i. 8f. ; 
2 Tim. iii. 4; iv. 7; 3 Jno. 7f.; Rev. xxii. 18 f [Matt. vi. 16]. 
In Philem. 20 the allusion in ὀναίμην to the name of the slave | 

593 Θνήσιμος "5 is less obvious. Moreover, the same remark made 
ith el. above respecting strange words may be repeated here, and is per- 
Be haps applicable to Gal. v. 12; cf. my Comment. in loc., and also 
th ed. ‘ Σ 


1 Τὴ the Agenda of Duke Henry of Saxony, 1539, it is said in the preface respecting 
the Popish parson: sein Sorge ist nicht Seesorge, sondern Meelsorge. 

2 An annominatio in which regard is had solely to the meaning occurs in Philem. 11 
᾿Ονήσιμον τὸν ποτέ σοι ἄχρηστον, νυνὶ δὲ σοὶ καὶ ἐμοὶ εὔχρηστον etc. Still more 
latent would be the annominatio in 1 Cor. i. 23: κηρύσσομεν Χριστὸν ἐσταυρωμένον, 
Ἰουδαίοις μὲν σκάνδαλον, ἔθνεσι δὲ μωρίαν, αὐτοῖς δὲ τοῖς KAnTois... σοφίαν, 
where Paul is said to have had in view the words ἘΞ chald. cruz, divion σκάνδαλον, 
ὉΞΌ stultus, and bay sapientia (Glassii philol. I. 1339). Iam not aware, however, of 
such a word as ὈΞΙΘ in Chaldaic; and it is only in Aethiopic that bpw signifies 
cross. 'The whole statement is an instance of learned trifling. Equally improbable 
is Jerome’s conjecture on Gal. i. 6, that in μετατίθεσθε the apostle makes an allusion 
to the Oriental etymology of the name Γαλάται (from mda or dba), see my Comment. 
in loc. and Boettcher as above, 8. 74 sq. In the discourses of Jesus, which were 
delivered in Syro-Chaldaic, many verbal allusions may have disappeared in the process 
of translating into Greek, cf. Glass. 1.6. p. 1339. But the attempt of modern critics to 
restore some of them, as in Matt. viii. 21 (Zichhorn, Einl. ins N. T. I. 504f.) and Jno. 
xiii. 1 (μεταβῇ, MOB, MOP), must be pronounced decidedly infelicitous. 


§ 68. REGARD TO SOUND, ETC. 639 


Terent. Hecyr. prol. 1, 2 orator ad vos venio ornatu prologi, sinite 661 
exorator sim. 


That similar instances of paronomasia and annominatio would not be 
wanting in native Greek authors, particularly the orators, was naturally 
to be expected. Collections of them have been make by Tesmar, institut. 
rhetor. p. 156 ff.; Elsner, in diss. II. Paul. et Jesaias inter se comparati 
(Vratisl. 1821. 4to.) p. 24; Bremi, exc. 6 ad Isocr.; Weber, Demosth. 
p- 205. Cf. (further): Demosth. Aristocr. 457 b. ἀνθρώπους οὐδὲ ἐλ ev 0 é- 
ρους ἀλλ᾽ ὀλέθρους, Plato, Phaed. 83d. ὁμότροπός τε καὶ ὁμότροφος, 
Aesch. Ctesiph. § 78 οὐ τὸν τρόπον ἀλλὰ τὸν τόπον μόνον μετήλλαξεν, 
Strabo 9, 402 φάσκειν ἐκείνους συνθέσθαι ἡμέρας, νύκτωρ δὲ ἐπιθέσθαι, 
Antiph. ὅ, 91' εἰ δέοι ἁμαρτεῖν ἐπί τῳ, ἀδίκως ἀπολῦσαι ὁσιώτερον ἂν εἴη τοῦ 
μὴ δικαίως ἀπολέσαι, Diod. 5. 11, 57 δόξας παραδόξως διασεσῶσθαι, 
Thuc. 2, 62 μὴ φρονήματι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ καταφρονήματι (Rom. 
xii. 3), Lys. in Philon. 17; Xen. A. ὅ, 8, 21 ; Plat. rep. p. ὅ80 b.; Lach. 
p- 188 b.; Diod. Sic. Exc. Vat.. p. 27, 5; Appian. civ. 5, 192 τῶν νυκτο- 
φυλάκων ἔθος καὶ εἶδος, Diog. L. 5, 17; 6, 4; Aelian. anim. 14, 1; see 
Bttm. Soph. Philoct. p. 150; Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 138. In the Sept. and 
Fathers cf. especially Sus. 54, 55 εἰπόν, ὑπὸ τί δένδρον εἶδες αὐτούς... ὑπὸ 
σχῖνον. ἘΕἰπε δὲ Δανιήλ... σχίσει σε μέσον. 58, 59 εἶπεν - ὑπὸ πρῖνον. 
Εἶπε δὲ Δανιήλ ... τὴν ῥομφαίαν ἔχων πρίσαι σε μέσον (cf. Africani ep. 
ad Orig. de hist. Susan. p. 220 ed. Wetsten.), 3 Esr. iv. 62 ἄνεσιν καὶ 
ἄφεσιν, Wisd.i.10 ὅτι οὖς ζηλώσεως ἀκροᾶται τὰ πάντα καὶ θροῦς 
γογγυσμῶν οὐκ ἀποκρύπτεται, xiv. 5 θέλεις μὴ ἀργὰ εἶναι τὰ τῆς σοφίας σου 
ἔργα (cf. Grimm, Comment. on the Book of Wisdom, Introd. p. 40), Acta 
apocr. p. 243 ἐξ ἀπειρίας μᾶλλον δὲ ἀπορίας, Macar. hom. 2, 1 τὸ σῶμα 
οὐχὶ ἕν μέρος ἢ μέλος πάσχει. As to Latin, see Jani, ars poet. 
423 sq. 


8. Parallelismus membrorum, the well-known peculiarity of 594 
Hebrew poetry, occurs also in the N.T. when the style rises to the. 
the elevation of rhythm. This parallelism is sometimes synonymous, 
as in Matt. x. 26; Jno.i.17; vi. 85; xiv. 27; Rom. ix. 2; xi. 12, 
83; 1 Cor. xv.54; 2 Thess. ii.8; Heb. xi. 17; Jas.iv.9; 2 Pet. 

ii. 8, etc., and sometimes antithetic, as in Rom. ii. 7; Jno. ili. 6, ᾿ 
20f.; 1 Pet..iv. 6; 1 Jno. ii. 10,17, etc. See, in particular, the 
hymn in Luke i. 46 ff; ef. § 65, 5 p. 611 (KH. G. Rhesa, de paral- 
lelismo sententiar. poet. in libris N. T. Regiom. 1811. 11. 4; J.J. 
Snouk Hurgronje, de parallel. membror. in J. Chr. dictis observando. 
Utr. 1836. 8vo.). Sometimes dogmatical statements which might 

be expressed in a single proposition are divided in this way into 563 
parallel members, Rom. iv. 25; x.10. Likewise 1 Tim. iii. 16, She. 
where parallelism is accompanied with entire similarity of the 662 


640 § 68. REGARD TO SOUND, ETC. 


clauses, appears to be a quotation from one of the hymns of the 
apostolic church. 

4, The Greek verses or parts of verses! found in the N. T. are 
of two sorts: they either belong to Greek poets and are quoted 
as theirs; or they make their appearance suddenly and without 
any sign of quotation, — whether because they were current poetic 
utterances of unknown authorship, or, as is more frequently the 
case, were let fall by the writer unconsciously, which sometimes 
occurs even in good prose writers, but was pronounced a blemish 
by the ancient teachers of rhetoric.2. The apostle Paul alone has 
inwoven poetic quotations into his discourses, and in three passages 
(J. Hoffmann de Paulo apost. scripturas profanas ter allegante. 
Tubing. 1770. 4to.): 

a. In Tit. i. 12 there occurs an entire hexameter, from Epi- 
menides of Crete (ἴδιος αὐτῶν προφήτης cf. vs. 5): 


- vi=- - τι -- 


Κρητες alee ψευΐίσται, κακα θηρια | γαστερες | apyas. 
b. Acts xvii. 28 contains the half of an hexameter: 


- ν- ν 








- vw | - v ν 








- - vv - ν 





του yap | Καὶ YYEVOS | ET LEV, 
595 ef. Arat. Phaenom. 5, where the conclusion of the verse runs thus: 
Τὰ οἱ, ὁ δ᾽ ἤπιος ἀνθρώποισι (δεξιὰ σημαίνει), so that a spondee occurs 
in the fifth foot, as frequently happens, particularly in Aratus 10, 
12, 32, 33. 
c. In 1 Cor. xv. 33 there is an Iamb. trimeter acatalectus 
(senarius) : 


- - ν - - - v= v= ν = 


φθειρουϊσιν θη χρησθ᾽ | ops|Acac | κακαι, 
where, as often takes place, spondees are used in the odd feet 1 
and 3 (Hm. doctr. metr. p. 74%). The quotation is from the 
well-known comic poet Menander, and, according to H. Stephanus, 
from his Thais (see Menandri Fragm. ed. Meineke p. 75, and Fragm. 

















1 Loeffler, de versib. qui in soluta N. T. oratione habentur. L. 1718. 4to. ; Kosegar- 
ten, de poetarum effatis graec. in N. T., also his Dissertatt. acad. ed. Mohnike 
p. 1385 sqq. Ἷ 

2 Cf. Cic. orat. 56, 189 (a passage erroneously quoted by Weber, Demosth. p. 208), 
Quintil. Instit. 9, 4, 52. 72sqq.; Fabric. biblioth. latin. ed. Ernesti II. 389; Nolten, 
Antibarb. under the word versus; Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 52 sq. ; Dissen, Demosth. 
cor. p. 315; Franke, Demosth. p. 6, likewise the Classical Journ. no. 45, p. 40sqq. 1 
have never seen the dissertation of Loeffler ( Moeller) de versu inopinato in prosa. L. 1668. 
That condemnation of poetic insertions in prose, has been qualified and corrected by 
Hm. opuse. I. 121 βη6. 

8 In Hm. doctr. metr. p. 189 impari sede is probably a misprint for pari. 





§ 63. REGARD TO SOUND, ETC. 641 


comic. gr. ed. Meineke vol. 4 p. 132). However, the best Codd. 663 
of the N. T. [Sin. also] give χρηστά without elision. 
5. To the second of the above-mentioned classes} belong 564 
a. The hexameter in Jas. i. 17, which even the old commentators ‘th ed 
had recognized : | 


- v ν -᾿ ν - - ν ν -v 








πασα δοῖσις pear Kau | παν ee τεϊλειίον 

(where, in the second foot in the arsis, ov might be used as long) ; 
see the commentators in loc. Schulthess tried to arrange the rest 
of the passage into two metrical verses ; but the rhythm is harsh, 
and the use of poetic words does not ἴῃ. James warrant us in 
inferring the presence of verses and restoring them by means of 
violent alterations and transpositions. 

On the other hand b. an unmistakable hexameter occurs in 
Heb. xii. 13 in the words 


- v we - - -“1- νυ πὶ νν τι - 

















καὶ Tpoxt\as ορίθας ποιίησατε | τοῖς ποσιν | ὑμων : 
And ο. in Acts xxiii. 5 the words quoted from the Sept. may 
be scanned as an lamb. trimet. acatal. : 


- = v = =~ -“; - - -- = | ν᾿. = 











ἄρχον τα Tov | λαου | σου οὐκ | ερεις | κακως, 
but, owing to the thrice occurring spondee in the Ist, 3d, and 4th 596 
feet, it would be offensive to a Greek ear. Tth od. 
Lastly, in Jno. iv. 85 the words τετράμηνος ... ἔρχεται have the 
rhythm of a trimeter acatalect., if read thus: 


ν - 


τετράμη νος ea|TL χὡ] θερισίμος ερχίεται. 
The first foot is δὴ anapaest (Hm. doctr. metr. p. 119 5ᾳ.). As 
to x for καὶ ὁ, see Bttm. I. 122. 


ν ν -| v - ν - vy = v - 

















1 Hunting for such verse is so much the more a matter of idle curiosity, as prosaic 
rhythm is different from poetic and sometimes does not permit these passages to appear 
as verse; Hm. as above, p. 124; Thiersch in the Munich gel. Anzeigen 1849. Bd. 28 
nr. 118. We have adduced such passages only as by themselves furnish a complete 
thought. For half or incomplete sentences containing a rhythm, see the Classical 
Journal, as above, p. 46sq. Also in 2 Pet. ii. 22 some have, by combining the two 
proverbs, framed Iambic verses, see Bengel. 

81 


Sb Oa ΜΡ 
δ : RA ᾿ λ, ; 


meat, 





TN BX. . 


IL INDEX OF PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS. 


The Figures refer to Pages. 


a 


Abbreviations popular a “~ 


Abnormal relation of words in a sen- 
tence 631 sqq. 


Abounding verbs of, with the gen. 201. 

Absolute cases 181; gen. 207sq.; dat. 
220; ace. 181, 231, 574. 

Abstracts often without the art. 120; in 
the plur. 176 ; joined to concretes 530. 


Accentuation 49 sqq.; distinguishes 
forms 53 sq. ; of enclitic pron. 54. 


Accusative the, with trans. verbs 221 
sqq-; of kindred signification 224 ; of 
place after verbs of motion 224; of 
object, not expressed by ἐν (3) 226; 
double 226 sqq. ; after passives 229; as 
remote object 229 sqq.; specification of 
time and place 230; of closer speci- 
fication 230; adverbial 464; absolute 
181, 231, 574; with infin. 321; after 
ὅτι 573 ; of neut. pron. or adj. added 
to verb 227. 


Accusing verbs of, with the gen. 203. 


Active Verbs transitive 251 ete.; for 
reflexives 251; for passives 252; for 
middle 255 sq. 


Adjectives inflection and comparison 
of 68 sqq.; derivative and compound 
96 sqq.; with subst. and art. 131 sq. ; 
_used as subst. take the art. 108 sq. ; 
neut. as subst. 95, 234, 517; with the 





alleged Hebr. use of fem. for neut. 
238 ; comparison of 239 sqq.; used 
for adverbs 463 } position of 523 sqq. ; 
two or more without a copula 525; 
referring to substs. of different gend. 
or numb. 526 sq.; predicate 528; can 
they be omitted? 594 sq.; of result, 
proleptic use of 624; supposed ab- 
normal relation of 634 sq. 


Adverbs in: or εἰ 43 sq. ; used with art. 
for nouns 109; relative often inélude 
def. 159; prepositions combined with 
422 sq. ; prepositions used for 102, 423; 
N. T. writers masters of 462; use of 
adjs. and substs. for 463 sq. ; are they 
used for adjs. ? 465 ; adverbial notions 
expressed by the dat. or the part. 
466; treated as verbal467sq.; used as 
prepositions 470sq.; of place inter- 
changed 471 sq. ; irregular position of 
553; no ellipsis of 595. 

Aeolisms 36, 76, 83. 

Alexandrian dialect 21; orthography 
48; version (Sept.) 31 sq. 37 sq. 
Amplification 523 sqq.; predicative 527. 
Anacoluthon punctuation of 58 ; 168; 
in the Rey. 535 sq. ; 566sqq-; instances 

of peculiarly Greek 572 sqq. 

Annominatio 637 sq. 

Antiptosis 636. 


voc. 183; subst. used for 236 sq. ;! Antithesis 441 sqq. 538, 540 sq. 


648 


644 


Aorist used for pluperf. 275 ; for perf. 1 
276; only in appearance for fut. 277 ; 
never in N. T expresses what 7s wont 
to be etc. 277; for pres.? 278; de 
conatu? 278sqq.; aor. mid. for pass. ? 
255 ; aor. pass. for mid. ? 261; Aeolic 
form of 1st aor. opt. 76; 2d aor. with 
ending a 73 sq. 

Apodosis how introduced 541 ; doubled 
541 sq.; omitted 599; in condensed 
structure 619. 

Aposiopesis 599 sqq. 

Apostrophe rare use of in N. T. 40sq. 

Apposition use of art. with words in 
138; kinds of 528sq.; construction 
of 529 54. ; so-called gen. of 531; to 
the voc. put in nom. 533 ; to a whole 
clause 533; position of 534; in bre- 
viloquence 624. 


Aramaisms in N. T. 27 sq. 
Arrangement of words etc. see Position. 


Article the, as a pron. 104 sq.; before 
nouns 105 sqq.; generic 106; not used 
for a pronominal adj. 107; not used 
for rel. pron. 107; for possess. pron. 
108 ; peculiarly Greek use of 108 sq. ; 
with adjs. and parts. used as substs. 
108 ; with πολλοί 110; with οὗτος or 
ἐκεῖνος 110; with πᾶς 110 sq.; with 
τοιοῦτος 111; with ἕκαστος 111; with 
αὐτός 112; with proper names 112; 
with the pred. 114 ; indefinitely ¢ 115 ; 
when optional 115 sq.; the indef. (τὶς) 
expressed sometimes by εἷς 8 117; its 
use or omission sometimes a character- 
istic of style 118 ; variation of MSS. as 
to use of 118; omission of with nouns 
denoting single objects ete. 119 sq. ; 
with abstracts 120; with nouns ren- 
dered def. by a gen. 125; with a 
numeral 125 sq. ; its use and omission 
with nouns connected by καί 126 sqq. ; 
by ἤ 127; with attributives 131 sqq: ; 
with attrib. part. 134; with a part. 
in a derisive force 135 ; when omitted 
with adjuncts 135 564. ; use of with 
words in apposition 138 ; with an at- 
tributive joined to an anarthrous noun 
139 sq.; with the infin. 320, 324. 

Asyndeton 58, 520, 537 sqq. 

Atticisms 36. 





ENGLISH INDEX. . 


Attraction of the relative 163; by the 
relative 164; of the relative by a 
noun following 166; in structure 544, 

- 625 sqq. 

Augment temp. for syllab. 70; of verbs 
beginning with ev 71; double 72; 
omitted 72 sq. 


Beth essentiae 38, 184, 513. 


Blended constructions as causing re- 
dundancies 605. 


Breviloquence (brachylogy) 619 sqq. 

Breathings over p 48. 

Broken and heterogeneous structure 
566 sqq. . 


Buying etc. verbs of, take gen. of price 
206. 


Cardinals repeated assume a distributive 
sense 249; use of the sing. to signify 
one 249 ; arrangement of in combina- 
tions 250. 

Caring for verbs of, with the gen. 205. 

Cases in general 179 sqq.; no enallage 
of 180; absolute 181, 220, 231.Cf. Ab- 
solute cases. 

Cause dative of 216. 

Chiasmus 411. 

Cilicisms in N. T. 27. 

Circumlocutions use of prepositions 
in 423 sqq. - 

Circumstantiality of style 605 sqq. 

Clause necessary contents of a grammat- 
ical 56 sq., 512; want of connection 
of clauses 537 sq.; connection of by 
particles 539 sqq.; contrasted 540; 
connected by forms of inflection (infin. 
or part.) 543; position of 546 sqq., 
of arelative 167, 542; rhetorical trans- 
position of 549; trajection of 551 sq., 
560; one expressed twice 610; one 
resolved into two 629 sq. Cf. Structure 
of sentences. 

Collectives with a plur. pred. and with 
a sing. 515 sq.; with plur. adj. 526. 

Comma use of 56sqq.; a half comma 
desirable 59. 

Comparative of adverbs 69 sq. ; of adj. 
sometimes formed by the pos. with μᾶλε 


ΝΜ .. 


ENGLISH INDEX. 645 


λον a prep. or # 240; strengthened by 
μᾶλλον 240; strengthened, by a prep. 
240 ; used for the pos. ? 242; for the 
superl. ? 242; in loose reference 245. 

Comparison, of adjectives 69; abbre- 
viated 245, 623. 

Compound words formation of 99sqq.; 
substantives 99 sq. 101 ; adjectives 100; 
verbs 100 sq. 102 ; adverbs 102 ; proper 
names 102 sq. 


Conjunctions use of 433 sq. ; conjunc- 
tive 434 sqq.; disjunctive 440 sq.; ad- 
versative441 sq.; temporal, inferential, 
causal 444 sqq.; final and objective 
449 ; not interchanged, nor weakened 
449 sqq. ; position of 119, 558 sq.; no 
ellipsis of 595. 

Constructio ad sensum 14], 147, 
513sqq. 525 sqq. 631. 


*Constructio praegnans 621. 


Construction see Structure of sentences. 
Contraction 46, 102. e 


Copula agrees in number with subj. 
513 sq. ; omitted 521, 584 sq. 


Correlation 440. 
Crasis 46. 


Dative the, of pers. pron. apparently 
pleonastic 155; after veybs 208 sq. ; 
after εἶναι and γίνεσθαι 210; after 
substantives 211; of relation (opinion, 
interest, commodi and incommodi) 211 
86. ; εἰς and ἐν in periphrasis for 212, 
217; for the local πρός and εἰς 214; 
related to μετά 214; with verbs of 
coming 215; in reference to which (the 
sphere, the standard, the cause and 
motive) 215 sq. ; instrumental 216 ; 
use of ἐν, κατά, διά etc. for 217; of 
time, whether a point or a period 218 ; 
of place 219; with passives 219; ab- 
solute 220; double 220sq.; of the 
infin. 328; after ἐν 8384 566. ; after 
σύν 391 ; after ἐπί 392 sq. ; after παρά 
894 ; after πρός 395. 

Dawes’s rule 507. 

Declension rare forms of the Ist 60; 
of the 2d 62; of the 3d 64; declension 
of foreign words 66; of adjectives 68. 

Defective structure 580 sqq. Cf. Struc- 
ture of sentences. 


Defective Verbs 81 sqq. 

Demonstrative pronouns neut. used 
adverbially 142; irregular reference 
of 157; included in the relative 158 ; 
repetition of 159sq.; before ὅτι, ἵνα 
etc. 161; before a pred. infin. or a 
subst. 161; before a particip. constr. 
161; the plur. for sing. 162; position 
of 162; omitted in cases of attraction 
165 sq. ; in loose reference 632. 


Deponent Verbs 258 sq. 

Derivation by terminations: of verbs 
91,of substantives 93, of adjectives 96 ; 
by composition : of substantives 99, of 
adjectives 100, of verbs 100 sq. 

Desiring verbs of,take the gen. 204. 

Dialect the Alexandrian 20, 21; the 
Hellenistic 28; the Christian 35. 

Digressions 565. 

Diminutives 96. 

Discord supposed, between subj. and 
pred. 517. 

Disjoining verbs of, take prep. 197. 

Distributives how expressed in N.T. 
249. 

Doric forms ete. 36. 

Dual the, not found in N. T. 177. 


Elision comparatively rare in N. T. 40. 

Ellipsis with adj. 234 ; 580 sqq.; of the 
copula 584 sq. ; of the subj. 588 ; list of 
substs. often omitted 590 ; of the noun 
with trans. verbs 593; none of ady. 
or conj. 595; partial of both subj. 
and pred. in the same clause 596; of 
a whole proposition 598 ; in quotations 
from O. T. 599. 

Enallage of gend. in pronouns 141 ; of 
numb. in the same 141; of the gend. 
and numb. of nouns 174sq.; of cases 
180; of tenses 264; of prep. 361, 411; 
of numb. with verbs 515; of gend. 
with verbs 517. 


Enclitics how to be written 54; position 
of 558. 


Enjoying verbs of, with the gen. 197. 
Epexegetical apposition 528; gen. 531. 
Extension of subj. or pred. of a prop. 





523 566: ἘΞ ἘΞ: 


So, 


‘ \ 
/ 


ff Lao’ 
ij 


(us "OF. 


646 


Feeling verbs of, with the gen. 204. 


Feminine the, is the neut. used for? 
179, 238; in contempt 179. 

Foreign Words declens. of 66 sq. 

Forms rare of the Ist or 2d declens. 
60sq.; of the 3d declens. 64 sq.; of 
regular verbs 73 sq.; of verbs in μι 
etc. 78 sq. 


Fritzsche K. F. A. 10. 
Fulness of expression 605, 609 564. 


Future the, Attic 75; subjunctive 75; 
mid. for pass. 255; ethical (may or 
should) 279; 3d fut. pass. 279; not 
used for the pret. 280; sometimes 
nearly equiv. to the pres. 280; of a 
supposable case 280 ; supposed equiv. 
to the optat. 280; for the impera. 315. 


Gataker Thom. 14. 


Gender of Nouns new 36, 63, 65; 
174 sqq.; the neut. used of a person 
178 ; supposed interchange of 178 sq. ; 
supposed contemptuous force of fem. 
179; a noun of any gend. taken 
merely as a word is treated as neut. 
179. 


Genitive the, of pron. position of 155; 


import and use of 184 sqq. ; objective. 


185; and subjective 186; of remote 
dependence 187 sqq.; of local and 
temporal reference (see below) 187 sq. ; 
of relationship 190, 593; several gov. 
one by another 190; separated fiom 
governing noun 155, 191; two of dif- 
ferent signif. (pers. and thing) 191; 
placed before its noun 192, 551; sup- 
posed use of περί, ἀπό, ἐκ, παρά, ἐν, 
κατά, eis in circumlocution for 192sq. ; 
with adjs. and parts. 194; after εἶναι 
or γίνεσθαι 195; of separation and 
removal 196 ; with verbs of the senses, 
and of beginning, receiving, begging, 
giving etc. 197 sq.; partitive 200 sqq. ; 
gov. by an adverb 203 ; partit. gen. as 
subject 203; with verbs of accusing, 
boasting, smelling 203 sq. ; with verbs 
of feeling, longing, remembering, car- 
ing for, ruling 204 sqq. ; of price 206 ; 
of place and of time 207; absol. 207, 
544; of material 237; with the compar. 
239 sq.; of apposition 531. 





ENGLISH INDEX, 


Georgi Ch. Sgm. 15. 

Giving verbs of, with the gen. 197. 

Grammar N. T., scope and treatment 
of 1 sq. ; history of 5 sqq. ; works upon 
10 54. ; grammat. peculiarities of later 
Gr. 26sq.; of the language of the 
N. T. 36 sq. 


Greek later, peculiarities of 20 sqq. 


Haab Ph. H. 6. 


Hebraisms opinions on 13 sqq.; errors 
of writers concerning 29 sq.; definition 
of 30; perfect and imperfect 31 ; speci- 
fied 32 sqq. 38 sq.; in connection with 
certain pronouns (més) 171 sq.; εἰς 
and ἐν in supposed cireumlocution for 
the nom. 183; supposed Hebr. use of 
a fem. adj. for neut. 238; supposed 
use of vids etc. for adjs. (employed as 
subs.) 238; Hebr. superl. 246; sup- 
posed Hebr. interchange of tenses 264 ; 
in use of imperatives 311. 


Hellenistic Dialect the term 28; its 
peculiarities ef. 22 sqq. 


Hendiadys 630. 

Heterogeneous Structure 577 sq. 
Hiatus 40 sq. 

Hypallage 634. 

Hyperbatén 555 sq. 
Hypodiastole the 46. 


Hypothetical Sentences, four kinds 
of etc. 291 sqq. 


Hysteron Proteron 553. 


Imperative the, 3d pers. plur. of 76; 
usual import of 310; permissive 311 ; 
two connected by καί 311; aor. and 
pres. distinguished in N. T. 313 sq. ; 

_ perfect 315; substitutes for 315 sq. 


Imperfect the use of 268 sqq.; appar- 
ently for the aor. 269; never for the 
pluperf. 269 ; conjoined with the aor. 
270; apparently for the pres, 270. 


Impersonal Verbs 522, 588. 


Indeclinable Words accent of 52; 61, 
67. 


Indefinite (article) pron. (τὶς) sometimes 
expressed by εἷς 117; use of 170; po- 
sition of 170 sq. 


- = 


ENGLISH INDEX. 647 


Indicative the, distinguished from the 
subjunc. and the opt. 281; imperf. 
sometimes used for our subjunc. 282 ; 
pres. in direct questions to be distin- 
guished from the subjunc. 284; after 
particles of design 289 ; with ἐάν 295 ; 
with particles of time 296 ; with inter- 
rogatives in indirect quest. 298; after 
εἰ, εἰ ἄρα, εἴπως 800 ; in the orat. obliq. 
301; with ὄφελον 301 sq.; with ἄν 
302 sqq- 

Infinitive the, for the imperat.316 ; ep- 
exegetic 318, 326 ; as the subject 319 ; 
as the object 321 sq.; in the oblique 
cases, especially to express design 324 
sq.; with the art. 320, 323, 324; after 
ἐγένετο 323 ; with ἐστί 320 sq. ; with 
the acc. 321, 323; with τοῦ 324 sqq. ; 
with τῷ 328; with preps. 328 sq.; 
after πρίν 330; pres. and aor. dis- 
tinguished in N. T. 330 sq. ; perf. 331, 
884 ; with μέλλειν 37, 333; ἵνα some- 
times used for 320, 334 sqq.; scme- 
times gives place to a clause with εἰ, 
ἐάν etc. 320; in modern Gr. 336; act. 
apparently for pass. 339 ; after ὅτι 339, 
573; in imitation of Hebr. infin. absol. 
339 ; as a means of connection 543. 

Interjections 356. 

Interrogative, neut. of τίς used adver- 
bially 142; particles, how construed 
298,508 sqq.; clauses 543, two interrog. 
predicates blended 628. 

Interrupted Structure 561 sqq. 

Tonic forms 36, 62, 84 sq. 

Iota subscript 46 sq. 


Jews the, how learned Greek 20 sqq. ; 
Jewish Greek 27 sqq. 


Language two aspects of 1; of N. T. 
history of opinions concerning 12 sqq.; 
basis of 20sqq.; Hebrew-Aramaic 
tinge of 27 sq.; grammatical character 
of 35 sqq. 

Latin its influence on Byzantine Greek 
28; Lat. terminations of patronymics 
95; words in N. T. Greek 103. 

Letters interchange of inAlex. orthog. 48. 

Lexicography 1. 

Lexicology 1. 





Masculine supposed to be used for the 
fem. 178. 

Metaplasms 63. . 

Middle Voice its force 252 sqq.; of 
mental objects 253; in a new signifi- 
cation 253, 254; with acc. often has 
the pron. expressed 254; expressive 
of the subject’s order or permission 
254; in reciprocal sense 254; tenses 
sometimes in pass. sense 254 Βα. ; ac- 
tive sometimes used for 255; act. and 
mid. sometimes interchangeable 256 ; 
with ἑαυτῷ 257; apparently for active 
258; mid. verbs to be distinguished 
from deponent 258 sq.; too many 
verbs regarded as in 252. 


Moods lax use of with particles 36; use 
of in independent propositions 282 sq.; 
in dependent propositions 287 sqq. ; 
with particles of design 287 ; in hy- 
pothetical sentences 291 ; with parti- 
cles of time 296 ; with interrogatives 
298 ; in oratio obliqua 300 ; with ὥςτε 
301; with ἄν 302 sqq.; after condi- 
tional clauses 303 ; in relative clauses 
306; in indirect questions 308 ; after 
particles of time 308. Cf. Imperative, 
Indicative, Infinitive, ete. 


Names of persons, from oxytones throw 
back the accent 51; indeclinable ac- 
cented on last 52 ; contracted 102 sq. ; 
with the art. 112 sq. 


Negation (473 sqq.) continued 487 ; un- 
conditional, in antithesis or followed 
by ἀλλά 496; in oaths expressed by 
εἰ 500 ; in interrogative sentences 510. 


Negative Particles 473 sqq. ; objective 
and subjective 473; use of μή 476 sq. ; 
in relative clauses with & 480; with 
the infin. 481; with participles 482 ; 
in succession 487 sqq.; after an affirm~ 
ative sentence or followed by ἀλλά 
495; two in a single clause 498 ; with 
the moods 500 sqq.; in dependent 
clauses 502; the intensive οὐ μή 505 sq. 
in interrog. sentences 510. 


Neuter used of persons 178; for the fem. 
178; verbs connected with their pred. 
nouns by preps. 232 sq. ; plur., when 
joined to a sing. and when to a plur. 
verb 514; adj. used as subst. 517; 


648 


neut. adj. or part. referring to a whole 
clause 533. 


W. T. Grammar, Language, etc. see 
Grammar, Language ete. 


Nominative the, absolute 181, 574; 
titular 181 sq.; for the voc. 182; in 
exclamations 183, 532 ; supposed cir- 
cumlocution for by means of es 183 ; 
by means of ἐν 184. 


Nouns, proper with altered accent 50sq. ; 
derived from verbs 93 sq. ; in pos 98 ; 
in μα and σις 93; in μονὴ 93; derived 
from adjectives 94 sq.; in rns 94; 
in orns 94; in ovyn 95; in ta 95; in 
nptov 96 ; in ἂς 102 sq. ; proper with the 
art. 112; list of anarthrous 120 sqq. ; 
used instead of the pron. 144; ante- 
cedent incorporated into the relative 
clause 164; Hebr. repetition of for 
every 174, 463 ; several plur. in Greek 
though sing. in English 176; of kindred 
signification, with verbs 224 ; substi- 
tuted for adjs. 236 ; listof often omitted 
590 sqq. Cf. Abstracts, Collectives, 
Gender, Number, etc. 


Number: use of plur. pronouns referring 
to a sing. noun 141; of notns, col- 
lective use of the sing. 174; -plur. of 
category 175; plur. used in Greek, 
though we use the sing. 176; dual 
does not occur in N. T. 177; use of 
plur. to signify two 177; neut. sing. 
or plur. used of persons 178; use of 
sing. to signify one 249 ; of the pred. 
differing from that of the subj.513 sqq.; 
plur. used of himself by speaker 517. 


“umerals 248 sqq.; use of card. for ord. 
in expressing first day of week 248 ; 
ordinal, abbreviated use of 249; car- 
dinal in distributive sense 249; ar- 
rangement of in combinations 250; 
construction of with ἐπάνω 250. 


Object gen. of 186; a single belonging 
to two verbs 521. 


Optative the, distinguished from the 
indic. and subjune 281; use of in 
independ. prop. 286; in depend. prop. 
288; after ἵνα 290 86. ; after εἰ 293; 
after a particle of time 297 ; after an in- 
terrogative 299 ; in the oratio obliqua 





ENGLISH INDEX. 


300 sq.; with ἄν 303 ; in indirect quest. 
308, 310. 

Oratio Variata 577 sqq.; mingling ot 
orat. rect. and obliq. 301, 545, 579. 


Ordinals a peculiar abbreviated use of 
249. Cf. Numerals. 


Orthography variations of in MSS. 40; 
Alexandrian 48, 48. 


Parallelism antithetic 610, 639; not 
pleonastic 611 ; synonymous 639. 

Parataxis 630. 

Parathetic apposition 528. 

Parentheses in N. T. 562sq.; in the 
historical books 563 sq. ; in the epistles 
565. 

Paronomasia 636 sq. 

Partaking verbs of, with the gen. 200. 

Partitive gen. 200sqq., as subject 203, 
513 ; partitive apposition 528. 

Participle the, as a subst. takes the art. 
108, 353; as an attributive, takes or 
omits the art. 134; its verbal character 
340; use of pres. 341 sqq. 353; fut. 
340; aor. 342sq.; perf. pass. 343; 
construction of 343; to be resolved 
by a particle of time 344; with καίτοι 
or καίπερ 344 ; two or more in differ- 
ent relations without a copula 344; 
apparently for an infin. yet different 
345 sq. ; periphrastic construction with 
εἶναι 348 sq.; is it ever used for the 
finite verb 350 sqq. ; with the gen. 354; 
in imitation of the Hebr. infin. absol. 
354 ; absolutely, referring to a clause 
533 sq.; with the art. as pred. 513; 
as a means of connection between 
clauses 543; in abnormal case, par- 
ticularly the nom. 572. 


Particles the, lax use of in N.T. 36; how 
certain should be written 45 ; of design, 
how construed 287 ; of time 296, 308 ; 
in general 356 sqq. ; how classified 356 ; 
comparatively frugal use of in N. T. 
857; works on 358; position of 558; 
no ellipsis of 595. Cf. Interrogative, 
Negative ete. 


Pasor G. 5. 


Passive the, with the dat. 219; with the 
acc. 229, 260. 1st aor. used for the 


ENGLISH INDEX. 


classic Ist aor. mid. 261; perf. and 
pluperf. in mid. sense 262 ; perf. sup- 
posed to be used for perf. act. 262 ; fut., 
singular use of 262 sq. ; is it ever used 
like the Hebr. Hophal? 263; forms, 
how to be distinguished from the same 
in the middle voice 263. 

Paul his knowledge of Greek 21; his 
doctrinal system as a guide to his 
language 98, 130; his use of the art. 
with Χριστός 118 ; his multiplication 
of relatives 167 ; his use of the gen. of 
more remote internal relations 188 ; 
his separation of the gen. from its 
noun 191; his use of the infin. with 
eis or πρός 329; fond of participial 
constructions 355; his doctrinal use 
of prepositions 360 ; his accumulation 
of prepositions 418 ; his bold arrange- 
ment of words 547; his use of paren- 
theses 565 sq.; and anacolutha 567 sq. ; 
fond of paronomasia 636. 

Perception verbs of, with the gen. 199. 

Perfect the, pass. for mid. 262 ; pass. 
said to be used for act. 262 ; its import 
and use 270 54. ; in connection with 
the aor. 272; for the aor. in narration 
272 ; how far used for the pres. 272 sq.; 
prophetic 273; supposed use of for 
pluperf. 274 ; in sense of pres. 274. 

Periodic Structure in the N. T. 545. 

Personal Pronouns multiplied in 
N. T. 143 ; occasionally omitted 143 ; 
occasional use of nouns for 144; loose 
reference of 145 sq. ; repetition of 147 
sq-; in nom. always emphatic 152; 
position of 155; dat. apparently su- 
perfluous 155; ἣ ψυχή pov etc. in 
circumlocution for ? 156. 

Persons rare forms of, in regular verbs 
75 sqq. 

Pfochen Seb. 13. 

Place gen. of 207; dat. of 219; ace. of 
after verbs of motion 224; as a speci- 
fication 230. 

Pleonasm 601 564. ; causes of 602; for 
the most part circumstantiality or 
fulness 605 sq. ; supposed instances 
of examined 612 sqq. 

Pluperfect augment of omitted 72; 
pass. in mid. sense 262; of certain 





649 


verbs. equiv. to imperf. 274; when 
expressed by the aor. 275. 


Plural the, of category 175; of certain 
nouns used for the sing. 176 ; of names 
of countries and cities 176; of nouns 
denoting a feeling etc. 176; Hebr. plur. 
maj. or excellentiae 177; for the dual 
177; neut. used of a person 178 ; used 
of himself by the speaker 517. 


Polysyndeton 519, 540. 


Position of words and clauses 546 sqq. ; 
how determined 546; works on 546sq.; 
in N. T. simple 547; in the apostolic 
benediction 549 ; of the vocative 549; 
causes of unusual 549; of the predicate 
551; of the gen. before its noun 155, 
192, 551 ; trajection 551 sq.; hysteron 
proteron 553; irregular, of single 
words, particularly certain adverbs 
and negatives 553 sq. ; of mpd, ἀπό etc. 
in specifications of place and time 
557 sq.; of particles and enclitic pro- 
nouns 558; supposed transposition of 
clauses 560; as affected by a regard 
to sound 636sq. Cf. Adjectives, Ap- 
position ete. 

Positive the, with μᾶλλον a prep. or ἤ 

᾿ instead of the compar. 240; for the 
superl. 246. 

Possessive Pronouns 143 sqq. ; some- 
times to be taken objectively 153; 
ἴδιος used for 153 sq.; circumlocutions 
for 154 sq. 


Predicate the art. with 114; its connec- 
tion with the subj. 512 566. ; a clause 
as 513; consisting of a part. with the 
art. 513; grammat. discord between 
pred. (or copula) and subj. 513 sqq. ; 
grammat. form of compound 518 ; sey- 
eral, how connected 519; several with 
a common object 521 ; indispensable 
521; extended by adjuncts 523 sqq. ; 
527 ; when placed first 551. 


Prepositions predilection for in N. T. 
32, 38, 180; compound 102; connect- 
ing a (neut.) verb with its dependent 
noun 232 sq.; for adverbs 250, 428 ; 
general remarks on 358 sqq.; the 
proper sense of to be distinguished 
from the metaphorical 360; inter- 
change of 361 sq. 411 sq. ; interchange 


δ. 0 Ὁ 


of cases with 363; position of 868 ; 
with the gen. 364 sqq.; with the dat. 
384 564. ; with the acc. 396 sqq- ; the 
same in the same sentence used to de- 
note different relations 409; different 
in the same sentence 410 sq. ; kindred 
substituted for each other in parallel 
passages 411 sq.; ἐν and εἰς not used 
indiscriminately 413 sqq. ; accumula- 
tion of by Paul 418; repetition of 
419sq.; omitted before the relative 
421. sq.; combined with adverbs 422; 
in circumlocutions 154, 192, 428 ; 
after compound verbs 425 sqq.; two 
blended into one 629. 


Present the, its force 265; only in ap- 
pearance for the fut. 265; for the aor. 
in narration 266sq. ; conjoined with 
the aor. 267; may include also a past 
tense 267; in dependent clauses ap- 
parently for the imperf. 268; perfs. 
and aors. equiv. to 274; with force of 
perf. 274. Cf. Aorist, Future, Perfect. 


Prophetic Perfect the Hebr. 273. 


Pronouns enclitic 54; indef. expressed 
sometimes by εἷς 117; use of in N. T. 
140 sqq.; differing in gend. or numb. 
from their noun 141; in supposed 
reference to a following noun 142; 
neuter used adverbially 142 ; personal 
and possessive 143 sqq.; repetition of 
147 sq.; demonstrative 157 566. ; rela- 
tive 163 5644. ; interrogative and in- 
definite 168 544. ; Hebraisms in con- 
nection with 171 sqq.; in loose refer- 
ence 632 5ᾳ. Cf. Demonstrative, Per- 
sonal etc. 


Proper Names throw back the accent 
51; contracted forms of 102; with 
the art. 112 sqq. 

Proposition see Clause and Structure. 

Protasis 291. Cf. Apodosis. 

Prozeugma of the demonstr. pron. 162. 

Punctuation of the N. T. 55 sqq. 

Purists the, history of 12 sqq.; a criti- 
cism of their efforts 16. 


Questions rel. pron. put for interrog. in 
direct 167; the subjunc. in undeter- 
mined 285; indirect 298sq. 308, 543; 
negative 510 sq. ; with the fut. for the 


| 





ENGLISH INDEX. 


imperat. 815 ; brachylogy in 628. Cf. 
Interrogative. 


Quotation peculiar biblical formula of 
§22. 


Redundant Structure 601 sqq. 


Reduplication 72sq.; of verbs in p 
74 sq. 

Reflexive Pronoun used in reference 
to the lst and 2d pers. 150 sq.; with ~ 
the middle voice 257. 


Relative Pronouns thought to refer 
sometimes to the more remote noun 
157; include the demonstrative 158 ; 
attraction with 163sq.; agree some- 
times with following noun 166 ; for 
interrogative 167 ; multiplied by Paul 
167; before whole clauses 168; not 
used for demonstrative 168. 


Relative Clauses position of 167; use 
of 542 sq. 

Revelation book of, its irregularities of 
style 534. | 


Rhetoric (stylistics) of N. T. 1 sq. 
Ruling verbs of, with the gen. 206. 


Schema κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν 520. 

Sentence sce Clause, and Structure. 

Septuagint its Greek style 31 sq. 37 5644... 

Singular (the distributive) for the plural 
174. 

Smelling verbs of, with the gen. 208. 


Structure of Sentences: of a simple 
512 sqq. ; of compound 518 86. ; by 
extension of subj. or pred. 523 sqq. ; 
their connection 537 566. ; asyndeton 
537; polysyndeton 519, 540; position of 
words and clauses in 546 sqq. ; inter- 
rupted (parenthetic) structure 561sqq.; 
broken and heterogeneous (anacolu- 
thon 566, oratio variata 577) 566 sqq.; 
defective (ellipsis 580, aposiopesis 599) 
580 sqq.; redundant (pleonasm 601, 
blended 605, circumstantiality 605, 
fulness 609) 601 sqq.; condensed and 
expanded (breviloquence 619, con- 
structio praegnans 621, attraction 625, 
hendiadys 630) 619 sqq. ; irregularities 
of relating to single words (hypallage) 
631 5644. ; regard to sound in (parono- 


ENGLISH INDEX. 


masia 636, annominatie 638, paral- 
lelism 639, verse 640) 636 sqq. Cf. 
Clauses, Asyndeton, Attraction, Posi- 
tion, etc. 

Style (stylistics) in N. T. 1 sq. 31, 33, 
35, 37 sq.; of individual writers 4, 29, 
33, 39, 118, 546sq. Cf. Paul etc. 

Subject the, in relation to the art. 115; 
gen. of 186; relation to the sentence 
512 sqq.; a partitive gen. may be used 
for 203, 513; relation of copula and 
predicate to 513 sqq.; compound 518 ; 
one rendered prominent 519, 520; 
may be implied 521 sq. ; extension of 
523 sqq.; wanting 588, 631; sudden 
change of 631 sq. 


Subjunctive the future 75, 86; dis- 
tinguished from the indic. and the 
optat. 281; in independent proposi- 
tions 285 sq.; in dependent proposi- 
tions 287 sqq. ; in hypothetical sen- 
tences 291 sq. ; after particles of time 
compounded with ἄν 297, 308; after 
interrogatives 298; after ὥςτε 301; in 

. relative clauses with ἄν 307 ; with ἵνα 
for the imperat. 315; with ἕνα for the 
infin. 334 sqq. 


Substantives see Nouns. 


Superlative the, circumlocution for 246; 
Hebr. modes of expressing 246 sq. ; 
strengthened by πάντων 248. 


Synizesis 622. ° 
Synonymes 611. 


Syntax peculiarities of, few in later and 
ΕΝ, Τ᾿, Greek 27; 36sqq. 


Technical Termsreligious inN.T. 35. 
Tenses rare forms in 73 sqq.; how far 
interchanged 264 ; import and use of 
the pres. 265 sq.; imperfect 268 sq. ; 
perfect 270 sq. ; aorist 275 sq. ; force of 
in the moods 281 ; future 279 sq. ; dif- 
ferent connected 280sq. Cf. Aorist etc. 


Thinking of verbs expressing take the 
gen. 205. 





651 


Time gen. of 207; dat. of 218; acc. of 
229 sq.; particles of, how construed 
296 sq., with ἄν 308. 

Touching laying hold of, verbs of take 
the gen. 201. 

Trajection (transposition) of words 513 
sqq.; of clauses 560. 


Transition from a participial constr. to 
a finite verb 573; from ὅτι to the 
(acc. with) infin. 573; from a relative 
constr. to a personal 579 ; from oratio 
oblig. to rect. and vice versa 579 ; from 
the sing. to the plur. and the reverse 
580. Cf. Structure of sentences. 

Verbs augm. and redupl. of 70 sqq.; rare 
forms in tenses and persons of regular 
73 sqq.; in verbs in μὲ and irregular 
verbs 78 sqq-; list of defective 82 sqq. ; 
later forms of not always used in N. T. 
90; same forms may come from dif- 
ferent 91; derivative 91; compound 
100; decomposite 102; intransitives 
with ace. of thing 227; neut. used 
transitively 251, 263; compounded with 
prepositions, how construed 425 sqq. ; 
with ἀπό 427; with ἀνά 428; with 
ἀντί 429; with ἐκ 429; with ἐν 429; 
with εἰς 430; with ἐπί 430; with διά 
431; with κατά 431; with μετά 432; 
with παρά 432; with περί 432; with 
πρό432 ; with πρός 432 ; with σύν 433 ; 
with ὑπό 483; with ὑπέρ 433; in cir- 
cumlocutions for adverbs 467 sq. Cf 
Active etc. ; Tenses etc. 


Verbal substantives 93 sqq. (cf. nouns) ; 
adjectives 96 sq. 


Verses found in N. T. 640 sq. 


Vocative use of nom. for 182 ; most fre- 
quently without ὦ 183; position of 549. 


Voices see Activg, Middle, Passive. 

Vorst J. 14. 

Words see Derivation, Position, Paro- 
nomasia ete. 

Wyss Caspar 5. 

Zeugma 622. 


U. INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND FORMS. 


The Figures refer to Pages. 


a privative, intensive, formative 100. 

-a, -ἃ in the gen. 60. 

α in forms of 2d aor. 78. 

& for δι’ & 142, 

᾿Ααρών 67. 

*ABid accent 52. 

ἀγαθυοεργεῖν 26. 

ἀγαθοποιεῖν 95. 

ἀγαθὸς πρός τι and εἴς τι 868, 

ἀγαθουργεῖν 25, 101. 

ἀγαθωσύνη 25. 

ἀγαλλιᾶν 24. 

ἀγαλλίασις 25. 

ἀγανακτεῖν constr. of 232. 

ἀγάπη without art. 120; θεοῦ or Χριστοῦ 185. 

“Ayap, τό 179. 

ἀγγέλλω forms of 82. 

ἄγγελος art. with 124; ἄγγελοι and of ἄγγ. 
124. 

ἀγενεαλόγητος 25, 26. 

τὰ ἅγια 176,177; ἡ ἅγια ἁγίων 246; of 
ἅγιοι 35, 234; ἅγιον, τό 592. 

ἁγιασμός 98. 

ἁγιότης 25. 

ἁγνίζεσθαι 252. 

ἀγνοεῖν ἐν 629. 

ἁγνότης 25. 

ἄγνυμι forms of 82. 

ἀγορά without art. 121.° 

ἀγόραιοι accent 53; sc. ἡμέραι 590. 

ἀγριέλαιος 25. 

ἀγρός without art. 121. 

ἄγω forms of 82; ἄγε with plur. subject 
516; ἄγ. τινί 215; ἄγωμεν 251. 

ἀγωνίζομαι 260. 

ἀδελφός supposed ellipsis of 593. 

ἀδικεῖσθαι 254, 

ἁδροτής 52 sq. 

def position of 553. 

ἀετός 22. 

652 





ἄζυμα 176. 

-a(w verbs in 92. 

ἀθῶος ἀπό τ. 180, 197. 

Αἴγυπτος never has art. 112. 

αἷμα 30; αἷμα ἐκχέειν 88 ; αἵματα 177. 

αἱματεκχυσία 25, 26, 99. 

αἰνεῖν with dat. 536. 

-aivw aor. of verbs in 75; verbs in 92. 

αἴρειν sc. Tas ἀγκύρας 594. 

αἱρετίζω 26. 

aipéw forms of 82; αἱροῦμαι 253. 

αἰσχύνομαι with part. and with infin. 346. 

αἰτεῖν constr. of 227. 

αἴτημα 24. 

aixuadrwreve 25. 

αἰχμαλωτίζειν 25. 

αἰῶνες 176; of αἰῶν. τῶν αἰών. 247. 

αἰῶνιος inflec. 69. 

ἀκαίρως 463. 

ἀκατάριτος 236., 

ἀκμήν 464. 

ἀκολουθεῖν ὀπίσω 214, 284. 

ἀκουτίζω 26. 

ἀκούω forms of 82; constr. of 199 sq. 347; 
signific. of 274. 

ἀκρόβυστος, ἀκροβυστία 24, 99. 

ἀκρογωνιαῖος 236. 

ἀλάλητος 23, 97. 

ἀλείφειν constr. of 227. 

ἀλεκτοροφωνία 25. 

ἀλέκτωρ 23. 

᾿Αλεξᾶς 25. 

ἀλήθειν 22, 

ἀλλά distinguished from δέ 441 sq.; in 
abrupt transitions 442; οὐκ... ἀλλά 
442; ἀλλ᾽ ἤ 442; not used for οὖν 
451; nor for ef μή 451; nor for sane 
451; after a single neg. 495; before 
apod. 541; ἀλλά γε 559 ; ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα 620. 

ἀλλάσσειν constr. of 206. 


GREEK 


ἅλλομαι forms of 82. ” 

ἄλλος in apposition 529; position of 548 ; 
omitted 595. 

ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος 25, 99. 

ἅμα 470. 

ἁμαρτάνω, ἁμαρτέω forms of 82; constr. of 
233. 

ἁμαρτία without art. 120. 

ἀμφί does not occur in N. T. 372. 

-av for aot in perf. 76; ἂν in infin. omits: 
subser. 47. 

ἄν force and use of 302 sqq.; omission of 
282, 305 sq. 307, 333, 595, for ἐάν 291; 
in relative clauses 306; in indirect 
question 308. 

ἀνά with the acc. 398; constr. of verbs 
compounded with 428. 

ἀνάβα 9. ᾿ 

ἀνάγκη 30. 

ἀνάθεμα 24, 32. 

ἀναθεματίζειν 33. 

ἀνακαινόω 26. 

ἀνακάμπτειν 251, 

ἀνακεῖσθαι 23. 

ἀνακλίνειν 23. 

ἀνανεοῦσθαι 263. 

ἀναξίως 463. 

ἀνάπεσαι 74. 

ἀναπίπτειν 23. 

ἀναστρέφειν 251, 469. 

ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν 188. 

ἀνάστεμα 24. 

ἀνατέλλειν 251. 

ἀνατίθημι 253. 

ἀνατολαί 170. 

ἀνέλεος 100. 

ἀνεπαίσχυντος 236. 

ἄνευ 471. 

ἀνέχομαι augm. of 72; forms of 83. 

ἀνὴρ (φονεύς ete.) 30; without art. 122; 
ἄνδρες in addresses 610. 

ἁμαρτάνειν ἁμαρτίαν 225. 

ἀνθρωπάρεσκος 95. 

ἀνίστημι σπέρματινί 33; ἀνάστα 79; ἀναστάς 
redundant? 608. 

ἀνοίγω augm. of 72; forms of 83; ἂν. τοὺς 
ὀφθαλμούς etc. 33; γλῶσσαν 622. 

ἀνόμως 463. 

-avos ending of patronym. nouns 95. 

ἀνταπόδομα 25. 

ἂνταποκρίνεσθαι 25. 

ἀντί of price 206; with the gen. 364; constr. 
of verbs compounded with 429. 





INDEX. 


ἄντικρυς 42. 

ἀντίλυτρον 25. 

᾿Αντίπας 103. 

ἄντλημα 93. 

ἀνώγαιον or ἀνάγαιον 43. 

ἀνώτερος 69. 

ἀναμιμνήσκειν constr. of 205, 226 sq. 

ἀντιλέγειν 23. 

ἄξιος, ἀξιοῦν constr. of 206. 

ἀπάγγομαι 253. 

ἀπαίδευτος 96. 

ἀπαντάω forms of 83. 

ἀπάντησις 24. 

ἀπαράβατος 25. 

ἀπαρτισμός 24. 

ἀπείραστος 97. 

ἀπελπίζειν 34. 

ἀπερισπάστως 463. 

ἀπέχω 275; ἀπέχεσθαι constr. of 427. 

ἀπό in alleged circumloc. for the gen. 193 ; 
with verbs of eating, taking ete. 199; 
with verbs of fulness 201; meaning of 
etc. 364 sq. 369 sq.; distinguished from 
ἐκ 364; distinguished from“ird 369; 
distinguished from παρά with passives 
870 ; with verbs of receiving etc. 370 ; 
constr. of verbs compounded with 427 
sq.; trajection of with the gen. of 
place? 557; ἀπὸ ἄνωθεν 603 ; ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι 
422; ἀπὸ πέρυσε 422; ἀπὸ πρωΐ 422 ; 
ἀπὸ τότε 422; ἀπὸ μακρόθεν 603 ; ἀπὸ 
μέρους 423; ἀπὸ μιᾶς 423, 591; ἀπὸ 
μικροῦ ἕως μεγάλου 18. 

ἀποβλέπειν εἰς 622. 

ἀπογράφεσθαι 254. 

ἀποδίδομαι 253. 

ἀποθνήσκειν constr. of 210, 226, 227, 428, 

ἀποκαθίστημε augm. of 72. 

ἀποκεφαλίζειν 25. 

ἀποκρίνομαι 23, 253, 261. 

ἀποκτείνω forms of 83; signif. of 253. 

ἀποκυεῖ and ἀποκύει 88. 

ἀπολέσω 83. 

ἀπολαμβάνειν constr. of 428. 

ἀπόλλυμι forms of 83. 

᾿Απολλώς 62, 102. 

ἀπολύομαι 253. 

ἀποπίπτειν constr. of 427. 

ἀποῤῥίπτειν 251. 

ἀποστασία 24. 

ἀποστέλλειν 594. 

ἀποστερεῖσθαι with gen. 196; signif. of 254 

ἀποτάσσεσθαι 23. 


654 GREEK 

ἀποτόμως 463. 

ἄπταιστος 97. 

ἀπώσατο 90. 

ἄρα meaning and use of 444sq.; before 
apod. 541, 542; position of 558; ἄρα 
οὖν 445, 558. 

ἄρα interrog. 510. 

ἀργός, -ἡ, -ov, 24, 68. 

ἀργύρια 176. 

ἀρέσκειν constr. of 233. 

ἀμεσκεία accent 51. 

τὰ ἀριστερά 176. 

ἀρκεῖσθαι constr. of 232. 

ἀρνεῖσθαι 259. 

ἀροτριᾶν 24. 

ἁρπάζω forms of 83. 

ἄρσεναν 66. 

&pony 22. 

*Apreuas 102. 

ἀρτέμων inflec, 64. 

ἄρτον φαγεῖν 33. 

ἀρχή without art. 124; τὴν ἀρχήν altogether 
464. 

~apxns 61. 

-apxos 61 sq. 

ἄρχομαι constr. of 346; alleged pleonasm 
of 612 sq. ; peculiar use of 633. 

*Aola art. with 112. 

ἀσπάζυμαι 259, 260. 

ἀστέραν 66. 

déoroxe with gen. 196. 

ἀσφαλῆν 66, 69. 

ἀσφαλίζεσθαι τοὺς πόδας εἰς etc. 622. 

ἀτενίζειν 34, 100. 

ἀτιμάζεσθαι 252, 263. 

αὐθεντεῖν 28. 

αὐξάνω forms of 83, 251. 

αὔρα ellipsis of 591. 

αὐτοκατάκριτος 236. 

αὐτός in loose reference 145 sq. 632; sub- 
joined to the subject 147 sq. 519; sub- 
joined to the relative 148; repeated 149; 
‘Kal αὐτός for ὅς 149; unemphatic? 150; 
éadrdés 112; with dat. 150; αὐτός ἐγώ 
153; αὑτοῦ or αὐτοῦ 1 151 sq.; αὐτοῦ 
before the governing subst. 155; in 

* apposition 530; αὐτὸ τοῦτο adv. 142. 

ἀφεδρών 95. 

ἀφίδω 45. 

ἀφίημι, ἀφίω, ἀφέω 81. 

ἀφιστάναι constr. of 427. 

ἀφορὰν eis 622. 





INDEX. : 


ἀφυπνόω 26. 

᾿Αχαΐα art. with 112. 

ἀχειροποίητος 236. 

ἄχρι or ἄχρις ? 42; constr. of 297, 471. 


Βάαλ, ἡ 179. 

βαθμός 22. 

βαίνω forms of 79. 

βαλάντιον form of 43. 

βάλλειν 251 sq. 

βαπτίζω constr. of 216, 217, 412; mid. 254, 
255, 621; βαπτ. τινὰ εἴς τι 622. 

βάπτισμα 25, 35, 98. 

βαπτισμός 621. 

βαρέω 24; forms of 83. 

βασιλεύειν constr. of 180, 206. 

βασίλισσα 24, 95. 

βασκαίνω forms of 83; constr. of 223. 

βάτος, ἡ 86; ὃ 63. 

βεβαία 69. 

βεμβράνας 22. 

Βηθαβαρᾶ decl. 61. 

Βηθσαϊδά indecl. 61. 

Βηθφαγῆ 52; indecl. 61. 

βιβλαρίδιον 24, 96. 

Bidw forms of 84; χρόνον 226. 

βλάπτειν constr. of 227. 

βλαστάνω forms of 84; 251. 

βλασφημεῖν constr. of 222, 629. 

βλέπειν ἀπό 39; τι 228; εἰς 233. 

βοᾶν constr. of 212. 

βόσκεσθαι 252. 

βουλεύεσθαι 254, 

βούλομαι aug. of 70; ἐβουλόμην without 
ἄν 283. 

βουνός 22. 

βραδυτής 52 sq. 

βρέχειν 23. 


Γαλιλαία art. with 112. 

γαμέω forms of 84; mid. 254. 

γαμίσκω 92. 

γάμοι 176. 

γάρ origin and signification of 445 sq. ; in 
explanations 446, and going before 
447 ; in rejoinders 446; in questions 
447 ; repeated 447 sq. ; not to be taken 
for but 453; nor for therefore 454 ; nor 
for although 454 ; nor for on the contrary 
454; nor for nevertheless 454; nor as 
a mere copula 454 ; sometimes equiv. 
to δέ 452, 456; position of 558; in- 
troducing parenth. 562. 


GREEK INDEX. 


Γεθσημανῇ or -vet 52, 

γελάω forms of 84. 

γένει and τῷ γένει 120. 

γενέσια 34, 176. 

γεννήματα 23, 25. 

γεύεσθαι constr. of 36, 198; θανάτου 33. 

γῆ without art. 120; ellipsis of 592. 

γηράσκω 92. 

γήρει dat. 64. 

yiyvoua forms of 84; construed with εἰς 
183 sq.; with gen. 195sq.; with dat. 
210sq.; ἐγένετο with acc. and inf. 323; 
never used periphrastically 350; with 
pred. adj. 515; ellipsis of 586; καὶ 
ἐγένετο pleonastically 608. 

γινώσκειν signific. 263 ; ἄνδρα 18. 

γλῶσσα 32; ellipsis of 591; γλωσσαῖς Aa- 
λεῖν 594. 

γλωσσόκομον 24, 94. 

γνήσιος inflec. 69. 

γογγύζω 22. 

γονυπετεῖν τινα 210. 

Γολγοθᾶ indecl. 61. 

τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα 177. 

αἱ γραφαί 177. 

γράφω in the preterite 278. 

γρηγορῶ 26, 92. 

yuurnrevew 25. 

γυναικάριον 96. 

γυνή ellipsis of 190. 


δαίμων, δαιμόνια 23, 239. 

Δαυΐδ spelling of 44. 

δέ meaning and use of 441, 443; distin- 
guished from ἀλλά 441 sq.; μὲν... δέ 
441, 443; ob (uh)... δέ 442; οὔπω. .. 
δέ 442; καὶ... δὲ 448; δὲ... καί 443; 
never means therefore 452; nor for 
452; noris it a mere particle of transi- 
tion 453 ; as related to ydp 456; after 
a single neg. 495, 539 sq.; position of 
558 ; introducing parenth. 562. 

δειγματίζειν 25, 26. * 

δεῖπνος, ὁ 65. 

δεκατοῦν 24, 

δεξιά without art. 122; τὰ δεξιά 176. 

δεξιολαβεῖν 102. 

δεξιολάβος 101. 

δέομαι constr. of 198. 

depudrivos 26. 

δεσμός plur. forms of 63. 

δεύτερον 250. 





655 


δευτερόπρωτος 100. 

δή with imperat. 313. 

Anuas 103. 

διά with gen. 377 sq. 423 sq.; with verbs of 
praising etc. 378; denoting the causa 
principalis? 378; used of time 380; 
with acc, 398 sq. ; in cireumlocutions 
423 ; construction of verbs compounded 
with 431. 

διαβεβαιόω 253. 

διάβολος without art. 194. 

διάγειν sc. τὸν βίον 593. 

διαθῆκαι 177. 

διαθήκην διατίθεσθαι 225. 

διακονεῖν 593. 

διαλλάσσειν constr. of 206. 

διαπαρατριβή 102. 

διαπλεῖν with acc. 431. 

διαπονεῖσθαι 23. 

διαπορεύεσθαι constr. of 431. 

διασκορπίζειν 25. 

διατρίβειν sc. τὸν χρόνον 593. 

διδάσκειν τινί 223; ἐν 227. 

δίδωμι forms of 78, 79, 84; constr. of. 180, 
197, 198. 

διεγείρειν 102. 

διέρχεσθαι with acc. and with διά 431. 

δικαιοκρισία 25, 99. 

δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως 136. ᾿ 

δικαιοσύνη 32; etc. 85; without art. 120; 
θεοῦ 186; πίστεως 186. 

διό 445. 

διότι 445. 

διορύσσειν 594. 

διψᾶν etc. 17, 77 ; with ace, 204 sq. 

διώκειν 80; forms of 84. 

διώξω 84. 

δοκεῖν alleged pleonasm of 612 sq. 

δολιόω 26. 

δόμος ellipsis of 592. 

δόξα 32; ἡ 108. 

δραχμή ellipsis of 592. 

δύναμαι aug. of 70; forms of 76, 84; with 
infin. 8321, 327, 8333 ; used absolutely 
590, 594; alleged pleonasm of 613. 

δυνάμεις 32. 

δυναμόω 26. 

δύνῃ 76. om" 

δύο inflec. 64; with plur. 177 ; δύο δύο 249. 

δυσί 64. 

δυσμαί 176. 

δύω, δύνω forms of 84. 


656 


δωδεκάφυλος 100. 
δῴη 78. 

δῶμα 23. 

δωρεάν 230. 

δώσῃ 79. 


ἐάν sometimes ἄν, never ἤν 291; constr. of 
291, 293, 294 sq.; ἐὰν... εἰ 296; for 
ἄν after relatives 310; ἐὰν μή in oaths 
500 ; position of 550 ; supposed ellipsis 
of 541, 595. 

ἑαυτοῦ 150 ;" ἑαυτόν and ἑαυτῷ with the 
mid. 257. 

ἐγάμησα 84. 

ἐγγύς constr. of 195, 471; ἐγγὺς εἶναι 
465. 

ἐγείρομαι 252. 

ἐγενήθην 84. 

ἐγκαίνια 176. 

ἐγκαινίζειν 88. 

ἐγκαλεῖν constr. of 203, 431. 

ἐγκεντρίζειν constr. of 430. 

ἐγκρατεύομαι 25. 

ἔγραψα equiv. to γράφω 278. 

ἐγώ never unemphatic 152 sq. 

ἔδει a real imperf. indic. 283. 

ἐδώκαμεν 84. 

ἐθελοθρησκεία 100. 

ἐθνικῶς 463. 

ἐθύθη 44. 

~et in 2d pers. sing. pass. for ῃ 75 sq. 

εἰ with subjunc. 36 ; constr. of 291 sq. ; and 
édy distinguished 295, 296; with ind. 
fut. 300 ; for ἐπεί 448 ; denoting a wish 
448 ; in oaths 500; supposed ellipsis 
of 595; in direct quest. 508, 509; ap- 
parently for ὅτι 542; εἰ ἄρα 445; εἰ 
δὲ μή ye 583, 605 ; εἰ καί distinguished 
from καὶ εἰ 444; εἰ μή 478 sq. 633, rule 
for use of 479, not used affirm. 500 ; εἰ 
ob 478 sq., rule for use of 479, 

-era etc. in 180 aor. opt. 76. 

εἴγε 448. 

εἰδέα 48. 

εἴδω know, forms of 84; perf, 274, 

εἰδωλολάτρης 100. 

εἰδωλολατρεία 26. 

εἰδωλόθυτον 26, 100. 

εἱλίσσειν 22. 

εἰμί forms of 79; with part. in periphrasis 
348 sq.; with advbs. 465; omission 
of 584; with εἰς 188 5Βᾳ. ; with gen. 





GREEK INDEX. 


195 sq.; with dat. 210; with pred. 
adj. 515; ἐστί with infin. 320. 


ἱ τεινος ‘adjectives in 99, 


εἰπεῖν forms of 85; fut. 279, 280; εἴρηκε 
sc. 6 θεός 522; ἔφη in direct discourse 
558 ; ellipsis of 598 ; εἰπόν 22, accent 
51. 

efrep 448. 

εἴπως with ind. fut. 300. 

εἰρήνη θεοῦ 186. 

-es plural ending 64. 

εἰς never ἐς 52; in supposed circumlocution 
for the nom. 183 ; as a sign of the dat. 1 
212; of the acc. ? 228; 527; in cir- 
cumlocutions 228, 424,527; with infin. 
how rendered 329; with acc. 396 sq. ; 
used for ἐν 1414; with ἵζειν, καθίζεσθαι 
etc. 415; εἰς τρίς 422 ; constr. of verbs 
compounded with 480. 

εἷς and ὁ εἷς 116; εἷς as an indef. art. (ris) 1 
117; for πρῶτος 32, 248; εἷς καθ᾽ εἷς 
249; efs...0b172; cfs... καὶ εἷς 178; 
position of 548. 

eisépxeo Oat constr. of 427 ; εἰς τὸν κόσμον 18. 

εἴσω, ἔσω 52. 

εἶτα 540 ; before apod. 541. 

εἴτε ... εἴτε 440. 

éx in circumlocutions 193, 424; useof with 
gen. 366 sq.; distinguished from ἀπό 
364; with verbs of fulness 201 ; never 
put for ἐν 368; constr. of verbs com- 
pounded with.429; in local attraction 
629. 

ἕκαστος always without art. 111 ; with plur. 
pred. 516. 

ἑκατόνταρχος 61. 

ἐκβάλλειν ἔξω 603. 

ἐκγαμίζειν 102. 

ἐκεῖ for ἐκεῖσε 471. 

ἐκεῖνος with noun and art. 110; referring 
to the nearest subject 157; position 
of 157, 162; repeated 160. 

ἐκεῖσε for ἐκεῖ 472. * 

ἐκέρδησα 87. 

ἐκκακεῖν 25. 

ἐκκλησία without art. 122. 

ἐκλέγεσθαι ἔν τινι 226. 

οἱ ἐκλεκτοί 35, 284, 

ἐκμυκτηρίζειν 25. 

ἔκπαλαι 24, 422. 

ἐκπίπτειν constr. of 427, 

ἐκπλήσσεσθαι constr. of 282, 


GREEK INDEX. 


ἔκραξα 87. 

ἔκρυβον 88. 

ἐκτένεια 25. 

ἐκτενῶς 25, 463. 

ἐκτὸς εἰ μή 605. 

ἐκτρέπειν 251, 429. 

éxxéw forms of 85; ἐκχεῶ fut. 77. 

ἔκτρωμα 25. 

ἐκχύνειν 24. 

Ἐλαιών or Ἐλαιῶν 1.182, 

ἐλάκησα 88. 

ἐλαχιστότερος 69. 

ἐλεάω 85. 

ἐλεεινός 99. 

ἐλεέω forms of 85; constr. of 233. 

ἔλεος gend. 66. 

ἐλευθεροῦν constr. of 196, 197. 

ἐλεύσομαι 86. 

ἕλκω forms of 86. 

ἑλληνίζειν, ἑλληνιστής 28, 94. 

ἐλπίζειν constr. of 233, 321, 331, 410. 

ἐμός used objectively 153. 

ἐμπορεύεσθαι constr. of 222, 429. 

ἔμπροσθεν 471. 

ἐν and Beth essentiae 184,513; hebraistically 
for acc. of object ? 226; in alleged 
circumloe. for gen. 193; alleged sign 
of the dat. 217; ἐν Χριστῷ 359, 360, 
888, 390; with dat. in local use 384; 
temporal 385; fig. uses 386 sq. ; ap- 
parently with gen. 384; ἐν 6, ἐν τούτῳ 
387; distinguished from διά 389; ἐν 
ὀνόματί τινος 390 ; used for eis? 4138q. 
415; originally identical with εἰς 416; 
in adverbial and other circumlocu- 
tions 424; construction of verbs com- 
pounded with 429. 

ἔνατος 43. 

ἐνδύσασθαι Χριστόν 30. 

ἔνεγκας 90. 

ἕνεκα forms of 43; with infin. 329. 

ἐνέπαιξα 88. 

ἐνεργεῖν 258, 480. 

ἐνέχειν sc. χόλον 1. 593, 

% 80, 423. 

ἐννενήκοντα 43. 

évveds or ἐνεός 44, ᾿ 

ἔνοχος constr. of 180, 202, 210, 218. 

ἔνταλμα 35. 

ἐντεῦθεν looking forwards 161. 

ἐντρέπεσθαι constr. of 221, 429. 

évrpupay constr. of 430. 


83 





657 


ἐνώπιον 214; τοῦ θεοῦ 32. 

ἐνωτίζεσθαι 33. 

ἐξάγειν ἔξω 608. 

ἐξανατέλλειν 102. 

ἐξάπινα 24. 

ἐξαστράπτειν 102. 

ἐξεκρέμετο 87. 

ἐξένευσε 91. 

ἐξέρχεσθαι ἐκ τῆς ὀσφύος τινός 88. 

ἐξ οὗ whence 141 sq. 

ἐξομολογεῖσθαι 102 ; constr. of 30, 32, 209. 

ἐξὸν εἶναι 94. 

ἐξορκίζειν 102. 

ἐξουδενόω 26. 

ἐξουθενεῖν 25. 

ἐξυπνίζειν 34. 

ἔξω 471. 

ἐξῶσεν 90. 

ἔοικα 274. 

ἐπαγγελίαι 177. 

ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι With infin. 331. 

ἐπαινέσω 86. 

ἐπαινέω forms of 86 ; constr. of 203. 

ἔπαιξα 88. 

ἐπαισχύνομαι augm. of 78 ; constr. of 221. 

ἐπάν 297. 

ἐπάνω 102, 250. 

Ἐπαφρᾶς 103. 

ἐπεί 448 ; with indic. pres. 283. 

ἐπεὶ ἄρα 445. 

ἐπειδή 448. 

ἐπειδήπερ 448. 

ἐπεὶ μή 480. 

ἐπείπερ 448. 

ἔπειτα μετὰ τοῦτο 603. 

ἐπέκεινα accent 52. 

ἐπεκτείνεσθαι constr. of 431. 

ἔπεμψα equiv. to πέμπω 278. 

ἐπενδύτης 25. 

ἐπέχειν 593. 

ἐπηρεάζειν constr. of 221. 

ἐπί with gen. 374; with dat. 392; ἐφ᾽ ᾧ 
894; ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόμ. Twos 393; with acc. 
407 sq.; with different cases in the 
same sentence 409; ἐπί τρίς 422; in 
circumloeutions with gen. and dat. of 
abstracts 425; constr. of verbs com- 
pounded with 430. 

ἐπιγαμβρεύειν 26. 

ἐπιθυμεῖν constr. of 204, 430. 

ἐπικαλοῦμαι 253, 263, 430. 

ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι constr. of 202, 430 sq. 


658 


ἐπιλησμονή 98. 

ἐπιορκέω forms of 86, 

ἐπιούσιος 97, 236. 

ἐπιποθεῖν constr. of 204, 480. 

ἐπιπόθητος 236. 

ἐπισκιάζειν constr. of 431. 

ἐπιστέλλειν 23. 

ἐπιστολαί of a single ep. 176. 

ἐπιστρέφεσθαι 26, 251. 

ἐπιστροφή 26. 

ἐπίταδε accent 52. 

ἐπιτιθέναι τινί sc. Tas χεῖρας 593. 

ἐπιφᾶναι 89. 

ἐπιφαύσει 90. 

ἐπιφέρειν constr. of 431. 

ἐπιχειρεῖν pleonastic ? 613. 

ἐπουράνια, τά 235, 

ἐργάζομαι 72, 222, 259. 

ἔργον as a pleonasm ? 615. 

ἐρεύγεσθαι 23. 

ἔρημος accent 52; inflection 69 ; ἡ 106. 

ἐρίθεια, ἐριθεία 51, 94. 

ἔρις inflection 65. 

Ἑρμᾶς 103. 

ἐῤῥήθην, ἐῤῥέθην 85. 

ἔρχομαι forms of 86; ἔρχεται ὥρα, ἵνα 339 ; 
ὁ ἐρχόμενος 341. 

ἐρωτᾶν 22, 80, 32, 335. 

ἔσθησις 23. 

ἐσθίω forms of 86 ; constr. of 180, 198 sq. 

ἔσθω 28, 86. 

ἑστάναι 78. 

ἔσχατος without art. 131. 

ἐσχάτως 463; ἔχειν 26. 

ἔσω not εἴσω 52; 471, 472. 

ἐσώτερος 69. 

ἕτερος in appos. 530; ἑτέρῳ, ἐν 592. 

ἔτι in comparison 240; position of 553. 

ἕτοιμος accent 52; with aor. infin. 332. 

ἑτοίμως 463. 

εὖ augm. of verbs beginning with 71. 

εὐαγγελίζειν 24, 35; aug. of 71; constr. of 
180, 213, 223, 227, 229, 260. 

εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ 186. 

εὐαρέστως 463. 

εὐδοκεῖν 25, 101, 212, 222, 232, 

εὐθέως position of 554, 

εὐθύμως 463. 

εὐπερίστατος 236. 

εὐλογεῖν 32. 

εὑράμην 86. 

εὑρίσκω forms of 86; constr. of 219; εὑρί- 
σκεσθαι for εἶναι 1 616. 





GREEK INDEX. 


εὐσχήμων 23. 

Εὔτυχος accent 51. 

εὐχαριστεῖν 23, 222. 

εὔχεσθαι aug. of 71; 212, 259. 

-εὐω verbs in 92. 

ἐφάπαξ 422 

ἔφη in direct disc. 558 ; omitted 598. 

ἔφθασα 90. 

ἔφιδε 45. 

ἐφιστάναι constr. of 427. 

ἐχθές 24, 45; cf. 48. 

ἔχω with gen. 202; with infin. 333; ἐν 
γαστρὶ éx. 594; μὴ ἔχειν 594. 

-éw verbs in with e in the fut. 77. 

ἐωνησάμην 70. : 

ἕως and ἕως οὗ constr. 296; ἕως ἄν 308; 
ἕως as a prep. 470; ἕως ἄρτι, πότε etc. 
471. 


(dw forms of 86; constr. of 226, 227. 
ηλος, τό 65. 

Ζηνᾶς 102. 

ζήσω 86. 

(ητεῖν ψυχήν 33. 

ζωὴ αἰώνιος 133. 


% in comparisons 240 5α.; ἢ ... ἢ καί 440; 
never for καί 440, yet cf. 441; co- 
ordinate with οὔτε 491 sq. ; after neg. 
508 ; in questions 509; repeated 519; 
supposed ellipsis of 595sq. 

ἡγέομαι ὡς 602, 

ἥγησις 24. 

ἧκα 87. 

ἥκω 87, 274. 

ἥλιος anarthrous 119 sq. 

ἡμάρτησα 82. 

ἤμεθα 80. 

ἡμεῖς never unemphatic 153. 

ἤμελλε 70. 

ἡμέρα ellipsis of 590; ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ 463. 

ἡμίση, -ea, -εια 65. 

ἥμισυ inflection 64. ; 

ἡνίκα constr. of 296 ; ἡνίκα ἄν 297. 

ἧξα 87. 

ἤρεμος 70. 

-nptoy substantives in 96. 

ἠρχόμην 86. 

Ἡρωδιανός 95. 

hs for ἦσθα 80. 

ἤτοι... % 440. 

ἡττάομαι 260. 

ἤτω 79. 


GREEK INDEX. 


ἤφιε 81. 
ἦχος, τό 65. 


θάλασσα without art. 121. 

θάλλω 87. : 

θάμβος, gen. θάμβου 66. 

θανατηφόρος 10]. 

θάνατος 29 ; without art. 122. 

θαυμάζειν constr. of 232. 

θεάομαι 259. 

θεατρίζειν 25, 26. 

θεόπνευστος 96. 

θέλω with inf. 37, 321, 327, 333; θέλω ἥἤ 
malle 241 ; not for ἤθελον 284; followed 
by subjunc. 285, 595 ; iva 336 sq.; used 
adverbially 1 467; pleonastic? 612 sq. 

θεός, θεέ vocative 63 ; without art. 121 sq. ; 
ellipsis of 522, 588. 

θέοστυγής 23 ; accent 53. 

Θευδᾶς 108. 

θλῖψις, θλίψις 50. 

θρῆσκος accent 50. 

θριαμβεύειν 23, 251. 

θυμὸς ἀργῆς 611. 

θύρα without art. 123; in plur. 176. 

Oupeds 23. 

τθω verbs in 92. 


~i@ nouns in 95. 

ἰάομαι 259. 

ἰδέ and ἴδε 49. 

ἴδιος for poss. pron. 153sq.; added to a 
pers. pron. 154; position of 548 ; ἰδίᾳ, 
κατ᾽ ἰδίαν 591 ; τὰ ἴδια 592. 

ἱερίσσα 34. 

Ἱεριχώ 67. 

ἱεροσύλημα 25. 3 

ἱερουργεῖν constr. of 222. 

Ἱερουσαλήμ form and inflec. 67 sq.; use of 
art. with 112; plur. 176. 

-{(w fut. of verbs in 75; deriv. of verbs in 
91 sq. 

ἵημι forms of 80. 

Ἰησοῦς inflection 66. 

ἱκεσία 24. 

ἱλάσκεσθαι constr. of 227. 

ἱλαστήριον 96, 592. 

ἵλεως 22. 

ἱμάτια 176; ellipsis of 591. 

ἱματίζω 26. 

ἱμείρεσθαι 101 ; constr. of 204. 

ἵνα 449; with ind. pres. 36; constr. of 
287 sq. ; with subjunc. for imperat. 315; 





659 


weakened 36, and for infin. 334 sqq.; 
John’s use of 338 sq. 461; is it used 
ἐκβατικῶς ? 457 sq. ; ἵνα πληρωθῇ 461 ; 
apparently for ὥςτε or ὡς after adject. 
461 ; for ὅτι 1 462; supposed ellipsis 
of 285, 595; in breviloquence 620, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα 620 ; ἵνα τί wherefore 169, se. 
γέν. 586. 

-wos adjectives in 99. 

Ἰορδάνης art. with 112. 

Ἰούδα use of art. with 114. 

Ἰουδαία art. with 112. 

toa used adverbially 177. 

ἰσάγγελος 236. 

ἴσος accent 52; ἴσα adv.177; constr. of 209. 

ἱστάνω 87. 

ἱστάω 78. 

ἵστημι forms of 78, 79, 87; signif. of 252; 
perf. 274. 

Ἰταλία art. with 112. 

ἸἸωσῆς inflection 66. 


καθάπτω 257. 

καθαρίζειν constr. of 197. 

καθαρός constr. of 197. 

καθ᾽ εἷς 249. 

κάθῃ 81. 

κάθημαι forms of 81; constr. of 431. 

καθημερινός 26. 

καθίζειν constr. of 415, 431. 

κάθου 81. 

καθώς 26; καθὼς... οὕτως 440. 

καί 484 sqq. ; connecting numerals 250 ; 
connecting diff. ttnses 280; at the 
beginning of an apodosis 286, 438 ; 
connecting imperatives 311; distin- 
guished from τε 434; uses of 435 sq. ; 
with interrogatives 437; adversative 
437 ; epexegetic 437 ; meaning espec- 
tally? 438; after a particle of time 
438; nal... καί 439; in comparisons 
440, 603; never for ἤ 440; kal... δέ 
443 ; καὶ εἰ distinguished from εἰ καί 
444; καὶ γάρ 448; καὶ od, καὶ μή 493; 
in schema κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν 520 sq. 539 sq. ; 
transposed ? 560; introducing parenth. 
562; anacoluthic use of one for two 
576 ; καὶ ἐγένετο Hebraistically 608. 

καιρός without art. 124. 

Καισάρεια art. with 112. 

καίτοι, καίπερ with part. 344; καίτοιγε 
444. 

κακίᾳ without art. 120, 


660 


καλεῖν, ἐπί τινα 410, 5933 καλεῖσθαι for 
εἶναι 1 615; καλέσω fut. 77. 

καλοποιεῖν 25, 20 ; constr. of 222, 

καμμύειν 34. 

κἄν vel certe 584. 

Kava accent 52; indecl. 61. 

καραδοκεῖν 101. ν 

καρδία as a circumlocution for the pers. 
pron. 156; εὐθεῖα 32. 

καρπὸς κοιλία5 33; ὀσφύος 33 ; χειλέων 33. 

κατά with acc. of pers. pron. equiv. to 
poss. pron. 154 ; in circum. for gen. 
193; with gen. 381 sq.; with acc. 
400 54. ; in local sense 400; in tem- 
poral 401; in distributive 401; figu- 
ratively 401 sq.; καθ᾽ ἑαυτόν 401; in 
circumlocutions 425; καθ᾽ ὅλου 425; 
constr. of verbs compounded with 431. 

κατάβα 79. 

κατάγνυμι aug. of 70. 

κατακαήσομαι 87. 

κατακαίω 87. 

κατακαυχᾶσθαι constr. of 203, 432. 

κατακρίνειν constr, of 210. 

καταλαμβάνω 253. 

καταλείπω 87. 

καταλιθάζειν 102. 

κατάλυμα 25, 93. 

κατάνυξις 94. 

καταποντίζειν 24, 

καταστολή 38. 

κατεαγῶ 70. 

κατέαξαν 70. 

κατείδωλος 236. 5 

κατέναντι 102, 

κατενώπιον 102. 

κατέχειν εἰς 594, 

κατηγορεῖν constr. of 180, 203, 260, 431. 

κατόρθωμα 25. 

κατώτερος 69. 

καυχᾶσθαι constr. of 222, 233. 

κείρειν 257. 

κεκέρασμαι 87. 

κέκτημαι 2714. 

κελεύειν with infin. 332, 336. 

eis κενόν 592; κενῶς 468. 

κεραμικός 99. 

κεράννυμι 871. 

κεφαλίς 28. 

κέρας inflection 65. 

κερδαίνω 87. 

κήρυξ or κῆρυξ 1 50. 

κινέομαι 252. 








GREEK INDEX. 


κλαίω 87; constr. of 222, 

κλᾶν τὸν ἄρτον 35. 

κλαύσω 81. 

κλείς inflection 65. 

kAclew τι ἀπό Twos 622. 

Κλεόπας 103. 

κλέπτω 87. 

κλέψω 87. 

κληρονομεῖν constr. of 200. 

of κλητοί 35. 

KAiBavos 22. 

κλῖμα ace. 50. 

κλινάριον 96. 

éx κοιλίας μητρός 33. 

κοιμᾶσθαι 267 ; perf. 274. 

κοινωνεῖν constr. of 200. 

κολλυβιστής 94. 

Κολοσσαί spelling 44. 

κόλποι 176. 

κοράσιον 34. 

κόσμιος inflection 68. 

κόσμος 26; without art. 123. 

κράββατος 25, 43. 

κράζω 87, 274; 3d fut. pass. 279. 

κράξω 87. ἵ 

κρατεῖν constr. of 202. 

κρέας inflection 65. 

κρέμαμαι 87. 

κρῖμα accent 50. 

κρούειν 593, 

κρύπτω 88; constr. of 227; mid. 253; τι 
ἀπό τινος 622. 

κτάομαι 260; perf. 274. 

κτίσις 32; without art. 123. 

κτιστῇ, κτίστῃ 51. - 

κτίστης accent 51, 94; without art. 122, 

κυριακός 236. 

κύριος κυρίων 18; without art. 124. 

κύω and κυέω 88. 

κωλύειν with gen. 196. 

Κῶς, Κῶ 62. 


λαβέ, λάβε 49. 

λαβών pleonastic ? 607. 

λαγχάνειν constr. of 200. 

λάθρα 47. 

λαῖλαψ not λαίλαψ 50. 

λαλιά 38. . 

λαλεῖν γλωσσαῖς 594. 

λαμβάνειν constr. of 202; τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν 
237. 

λαμπάς 23. 

λάσκω 88, 


Eee 


τ νυν ρα σε. υυνουις 


GREEK 


λατρεύειν 593. ς 

λέγειν constr. of 212 ; ellipsis of 587 ; λέγει 
sc. 6 θεός 522, 588; λέγων used absol. 
535 sq.; pleonastically 602. 

Λευΐ or Aevis inflection 66. 

λιθοβολεῖν 25, 26, 102. 

λιμός, 7, 22, 36, 63. 

λογία 25. 

λογίζεσθαι εἰς 228. 

λογίζομαι 259; ὡς 602. 

λοιβή 23. 

λοιπόν, τό 592. 

λουεῖν ἀπὸ 197 ; λούεσθαι 258. 

Λουκᾶς 108. 

λυχνία 34. 

Λύδδα inflection 61. 

λύειν 32; constr. of 197. 

λυτροῦν constr. of 197; act. and mid. 
253. 


-μα substantives in 25, 93. 

μαθητεύειν 23; constr. of 221, 251. 

Μακεδονία art. with 112. 

μακράν 230. 

μακρόθεν 463. 

μᾶλλον in comparison 240, 603; πολὺ 
μᾶλλον 633. 

μάμμη 25. 

Μανασσῆ inflection 67. 

μανθάνειν with infin. and part. 347. 

μαρτυρίαν μαρτυρεῖν 225. 

μάταιος inflection 68. 

μάτην 230. 

μαχαίρης 62. 

μεγαλύνειν 30. 

μεγαλωσύνη 26. 

μεθύσκεσθαι constr. of 201, 217, 252. 

μέθυσος 28. 

μειζότερος 27, 69. 

μέλει constr. of 205. 

μελίσσιος 24. 

μέλλειν with inf. 37, 334; aug. of 70. 

μεμιαμμένοι 88. 

μέν 448 ; position of 558, 559; without δέ 
575 sq.; μὲν... ἀλλά 443; μὲν... δέ 
540; μὲν... ἔπειταδ76; μὲν... καί 576. 

μενοῦνγε 558. 

μέντοι 444, 558, 559. 

μεσημβρία without art. 121. 

μεσιτεύειν 25. 

μέσος without art. 123, 131; μέσον as an 
adv. 471. 

μετά with gen. 376 ; distinguished from σύν 





INDEX. 661 


391; with ace. 403; constr. of verbs 
compounded with 432; μετὰ τοῦτο or 
ταῦτα 540. 

μετανοεῖν ἀπό or ἐκ 622. 

μεταξύ, ἐν τῷ 592. 

μετασταθῆναι with gen. 196. 

μετέχω constr. of 180, 201. 

μετοικεσία 24. 

μετρεῖν ἐν 218. 

μετριοπαθεῖν 10]. 

μέχρι and μέχρις 471. 

μή etc. distinguished from οὐ 478 sq.; use 
of 476 sqq.; with imperat. 476; in 
conditional clauses 477 sq.; in relative 
clauses 480 sq. ; with infin. 481, with 
participles 482 sq. ; apparently for οὐ 
486 sq.; in continued negation 487 sq.; 
in antith. 495 sq. ; in independ. prop. 
500 sq.; in prohibitions 502; in de- 
pend. prop.502sq. ; after ὅρα, βλέπε ete. 
503, 601; after verbs of fearing 505 ; 
in questions 511; ellipsis with 596 ; 
redundant 604 ; in ef μή 633; in ἐκτὸς 
ef μή 605; in εἰ δὲ uh γε 605; wh... 
ἀλλά 595; wh... ἀλλὰ καί 498 ; μὴ od 
511; uh... was for μηδείς 171. 

μηδέ 487 sqq.; must be preceded by μή 
489; distinguished from καὶ μή 493; 
μηδὲ... μήτε 492. 

μηθέν 44. 

μηκέτι supposed use of for μή 618. 

μήν 434, 443. 

μήποτε 480. 

μήπως with indic. pret. 504 sq.; with both 
indic. and subjunc. 505. 

μήτε 487 sqq. ; used after μηδέ 1 492. 

μήτηρ without art. 122; omitted 190. 

μιαίνω 88. 

μιμνήσκεσθαι with gen. or ace. 180, 628. 

μισθαποδοσία 24. 

μισθωτός 51. 

μνημονεύειν constr. of 205. 

μοιχαλίς 24, 

-μονή substantives in 93. 

μονόφθαλμος 24. 

μόνος without art. 131 ; supposed ellipsis 
of 495, 595. 

-μος substantives in 93. 

μοσχοποιεῖν 26. 

μυκτηρίζειν ἐν 629. 

μύριοι, μυρίοι 58. 

μῶρος accent 52. 

Mwiojs spelling 44 ; inflection 66. 


662 GREEK 


y in the accusative 66. 
v ἐφελκυστικόν 41. 
vexpot without art. 123. 
νηπιάζω 92. 

vikos 24. 

γίπτω 88. 

vot, νοός 62. 

νομοθετεῖν 261. 

νόμος without art. 123. 
νοσσιά 24. 

voocol 24. 

ψαυθεσία 24. 

νοῦς inflection 62. 
Νυμφᾶς 102. 

νύμφη 32. 

νυνί 23 ; with imperat. 313. 
νυχθήμερον 25. 

νῶτος ὃ and τό 63. 


ξενίζεσθαι constr. of 209. 
Eevodoxevs 25. 

ξηρά, ἡ 18, 592. 

ξύλον 23. 


ξυράω 24. 


ὁ with participle derisively 185; with an 
acc. elliptically 589; ὁ μὲν... ὁ δέ 
104; ὁ δέ without 6 μέν 104; 6 ὧν κ. ὃ 
ἦν x. 6 ἐρχόμενος 68. 

ὅ for δι᾽ 8 142; before a clause 168. 

ὅδε apparently equiv. to 6 δεῖνα 162. 

ὁδός 32; ellipsis of 590; ὅδὸν θαλάσσης 
231. 

οἰκοδεσποτεῖν 25. 

οἰκοδεσπότης 25. 

οἰκοδομεῖν 30; augm. of 71; pass. 263; 
οἶκον 603. 

οἰκοδομή 24, etc. 35. 

οἰκτείρω 88. 

οἰκτιρμοί 176. 

ὀλίγος without art. 131. 

ὀλοθρεύω, ὀλεθρεύω 92. 

ὁλοκαύτωμα 88. 

ὁλόκληρος 25. 

ὅλος without art. 131. 

᾿Ολυμπᾶς 103. 

ὁμείρεσθαι or ὀμείρεσθαι 101. 

ὁμιλεῖν constr. of 212. 

ὀμνύω 88; constr. of 222. 

ὁμοιάζειν 25. 

ὁμοῖος accent 52 ; inflec. 68 ; constr. of 180, 
195, 209. 

ὁμοιόω ὡς 602. 





INDEX. 


ὁμολογεῖν constr. of 39, 209, 226, 

ὁμολογία 35. 

ὅμως 344, 444; transposed 553. 

ὀνειδίζειν with the acc. 222. 

ὀνειδισμός 24. 

ὄνομα as an alleged pleonasm 615; ἐν 
ὀνόματί τινος 390; ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόμ. 394. 

ὀνομάζεσθαι not esse 615 sq. 

ὄπισθεν 471. 

ὀπίσω 471. 

ὁποῖος 543. 

ὁπόσος 543. 

ὅπου for ὅποι 471, 472; 510. 

ὀπτασία 24. 

ὅπως constr. of 287 sq. 542 ; with & 309 sq. ; 
ὅρα ὅπ. 338; meaning and use 449; 
ὅπως πληρωθῇ 461; not equiv. to ὥςτε 
462 ; in indirect quest. 510; supposed 
ellipsis of 285, 595. 

dpdw 88; perf. in sense of pres. 274. 

ὀργή, 7 SC. τοῦ θεοῦ 594. 

ὀργίζεσθαι constr. of 232. 

ὀρέγεσθαι 252. 

ἡ ὀρεινή 591. 

ὀρέων θ4. 

ὀρθοποδεῖν 26, 102. 

ὀρθοτομεῖν 26. 

ὀρθρίζω 26, 33. 

ὀρθρινός 25. 

ὅρκον or ὅρκῳ 226, 603 ; eis 397. 

ὁρκωμοσία, ἣ 24. 

ὁροθεσία 25. 

ὅς supposed remote reference of 157 sq.; 
for interrog. 167; position of clause _ 
with 167 sq. ; for demons. 168 ; before 
a clause 168; ὃς ἄν with the moods 
306 sq. ; ds μὲν... ὃς δέ 10ὅ ; 8 for δι᾽ 
ὅ 142. 

ὁσάκις ἄν 297, 308. 

τοσαν in 3d plur. hist. tenses 77. 

ὅσον ὅσον 247. 

ὀστέα, ὀστέων 63. 

8stis occurs in N. T. only in nom. 163; 
ὅςτις ἄν 306, 480, 548. 

ὀστράκινος 26, 

-οσύνη substantives in 95. 

ὅταν with indic. 36 ; with the moods 297, 
308, 309. 

ὅτε with the indic. 296; with the subjunc. 
298; confounded with ὅτι 457; ὁπότε 
constr. of 296. 

ὅτι with infin. 339, 573; meaning and use 
of 445, 449; not equiv. to διό 456, 


GREEK INDEX. 


nor διὰ τί 456, nor guanquam-457, nor 
ὅτε 457, nor profécto 457, nor ὅς 457 ; 
542; pleonastic ? 597 ; before the orat. 
rect. 605; ὡς ὅτι 618. 

ὅ,τι mode of writing 46; as interrog. in 
N. T. 167, 168. 

ov etc. distinguished from μή 473 sqq.; 
combining with verbs 476 ; with nouns 
476; in conditional sentences (εἰ od) 
477; after ὅτι and ἐπεί because 480; in 
relative clauses 480 sq.; with partici- 
ples 485 ; in continued negation 488sq.; 
οὐ... ofre490; in antith. (οὐ ... ἀλλά) 
495,497 ; οὐ... ἀλλὰ Kal 498; οὐ μόνον 
«+. ἀλλά 498 ; with fut. ind. 315, 501; 
οὐ μή 505 sq. ; Dawes’s rule 507 ; with 
pres. indic. 507 ; in questions 510 sq. ; 
οὐκ ἄρα 511] ; οὐ μή disting. from μὴ οὐ 
511 86.; οὐ πάντως and πάντως οὐ 554; 
οὗ πάνυ 554; οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καί 583 
86. ; not for οὔπω 596; οὐχ ὅτι... ἀλλά 
597; οὐχ οἷον ὅτι 597; od... πᾶς 80, 
171 sq.; οὐ πᾶς 171. 

οὔ πο 476. 

οὗ whither 471, 591. 

ovat, ἡ 179. 

οὐδέ without a preceding neg. 487 ; in con- 
tinued negation 487; must be preceded 
by οὐ 489, 500; οὐδὲ... οὐδέ 489; 
after οὔτε 491 ; distinguished from καὶ 
οὐ 493, and from οὔτε 487, 494; οὐδὲ 
--- δέ 495; οὐδέ ne... quidem 500; 
οὐδὲ μή 506, 539 sq. 

οὐδὲ εἷς 173. 

οὐδείς ἐστιν ὅς with indic. 800, 

οὐθείς etc. 44. 

οὐκέτι supposed half pleonastic use of 618. 

οὔκουν and οὐκοῦν 512. 

οὖν uses of 444 ; allied to δέ 455; not equiv. 
to but 455; nor for 455; nor super- 
fluous 455; as connective 539 sq.; 
before apod. ? 541, 542; position of 558. 

οὐράνιος inflection 68. 

οὐρανόθεν 463. 

οὐρανός without art. 121; οὐρανοί 176. 

οὔτε... οὔτε 487 sq. 540; οὔτε ... οὔτε... 
καὶ οὐ 489; οὔτε after οὐ 490; οὔτε 
..-% 491 ; οὔτε after οὐδέ 1 492 diff. 
between and οὐδέ 494; οὔτε ... καί 
494. 

οὗτος with a noun and art. 110; remote 
reference of 157 ; repetition of 159 sq.; 
looking forwards 161 ; in expressions 





663 


of time 161; position of 162, 548 ; 
TavTa 162; ταῦτα πάντα 548. 

οὕτως and οὕτω 41; repeated 160; looking 
forwards 161 ; for οὗτος 1 465; before 
apod. 541; after condit. clauses 541; 
with part. 541; in anaphora 618. 

ὀφείλημα 32; ὀφειλήματα ἀφιέναι 80, 33. 

ὄφελον constr. of 301 sq. 

ὀψάριον 23, 

ὀψέ 471. 

ὄψησθε 88. 

ὄψιμος 24, 

ὀψώνιον 23; -ἰα 176. 

-ow verbs in 91. 


παθητός 97. 

παιδάριον 96. 

παιδεύειν 22, 

παιδιόθεν 26, 468. 

παίζω 88. 

παῖς 80. 

πάλιν position of 548, 554; δεύτερον or ἐκ 
δευτέρου 604; ἄνωθεν 604. 

mavdoxevs 25. 

πανοικί 26, 44. 

πάντα ταῦτα and ταῦτα πάντα 548. 

πάντη, πάντῃ 47. 

πάντων with the compar. 242; with the 
super]. 248, 

πάντοτε 26. 

παρά in comparisons 240; distinguished 
from ἀπό 364 sq. ; after passives 365 ; 
with gen. 365 sq. ; with dat. 394; with 
acc. 403; constr. of verbs compounded 
with 432. 

παραβάτης 26. 

παραβολεύεσθαι 93. 

παραδιατριβή 102. 

παραδίδοσθαι absol. 35. 

παραθήκη, παρακαταθήκη 102. 

παραινεῖν constr. of 223. 

παρακαλεῖν 22; with infin. 332; constr. 
with 335. 

παραλαμβάνειν eis 622. 

παραπλησίον 471. 

παρασκευάζομαι 253. 

παραφρονία 34. 

παρεμβολή 22. 

παρέχειν, παρέχεσθαι 257. 

Παρμενᾶς 108. 

παῤῥησία 23. 

πᾶς art. with 111; was ... οὐ (uh) 172; 
πάντη and πάντῃ 47; πάντα and τὰ 


664 


πάντα 116; πάντων with the compar. 
242; with the superl. 248; πάντα 
ταῦτα and ταῦτα πάντα 548; παντί, 
ἐν ὅ92. 

πάσχα 68. 

πάσχειν 35, 594; constr. of 412. 

πατήρ without art. 122; ellipsis of 190. 

πατριάρχης 26. 

Παῦλος use of art. with 113. 

παύεσθαι with gen. 196, 262; παύομαι mid. 
253, 263. 

παχύνειν 18. 

πείθειν ἵνα 338. 

πείθομαι 253. 

πειθός 24, 96. 

πεινᾶν etc. 77 ; constr. of 204 sq. 

πειράω 91. 

πεισμονή 98 sq. 

πέλαγος τῆς θαλάσσης 611. 

πελεκίζω 26. 

πέμπω in the preterite 278. 

πεντεκοστή 26. 

πεπειραμένος 91. 

πέποιθα constr. of 214, 238, 410. 

πεποίθησις 25. 

πέρατα τῆς γῆς 30. 

περί in circumlocutions ὁ 192 βα. ; with 
gen. 372 ; distinguished from ὑπέρ 373, 
411sq. ; with acc. 406; constr. of verbs 
compounded with 432. 

περιάγειν 257. 

περίκειμαι constr. of 229. 

περιπατεῖν 32. 

περισπᾶσθαι 23. 

περισσοτέρως 70, 243. 

πετάομαι 34. 

πέτομαι 88. 

πηχῶν 65. 

πιάζω 22. 

πίεσαι 88. 

Πιλᾶτος accent 52; use of art. with 118. 

πίνω 88; fut. πίομαι 90. 

πίπτω 89. 

πιστεύειν constr. of 213, 229, 233, 260. 

πιστικός 97. 

πίστις ete. 35; without art. 120. 

πλατύνειν Thy καρδίαν 30. 

πλεῖν with acc. 224, 

πλέον 596. 

πλεονεξία without art. 120. 

πληγή ellipsis of 589. 

πλήν 508. 

πληροῦν, πληροῦσθαι 180, 201, 217, 260. 





GREEK INDEX. 


Ὁ, 
πληροφορία 25. AMI 4 
πλησίον, 6 24, 130, 471. ni 
πλησμονῇ 94. 

πλοός 62. 


πλούσιος constr. of 201. 

πλοῦτος gend. 65 ; πλοῦτον πλουτεῖν 295, 

πνεῦμα ete. without art. 122 ; τὸ πνευματικόν 
592. 

ποία 22. 

ποιεῖν, ποιεῖσθαι 256; not pleonastic 609 ; 
ποιεῖν ἔλεος μετά τ. 88 ; ποιεῖν ἵνα 887. 

ποίμνιον accent 52. 

πολεμεῖν μετά τ. 180, 214. 

πολιτεύεσθαι 262. 

πολλάκις position of 553. 

πολυμερῶς 463. 

πολύς with other adj. 525, e.g. πολλὰ καὶ 
ἄλλα and ἄλλα πολλά 525; πολλοί and 
οἱ πολλοί 110; πολύ in comparison 240; 
πολὺ μᾶλλον 688 ; πλέον 596. 

πολυτρόπως 468. 

πορεύεσθαι ὀπίσω 80. 

πόῤῥω εἶναι 465. 

ποταπός 24. 

πότε for ὁπότε 510. 

mwérnpov ... ἤ 509. 

ποτήριον 32. 

mov 471, 508, 510. 

movs accent 50. 

πρᾷος 47. 

πραΐῦς, mpairns 45. 

πρηνής 22. 

πρίν with subjunc. 297 ; with infin. 330, 332. 

πρό 372; with gen. of time 557; constr. of 
verbs compounded with 432. 

προβάλλειν 593. 

προβατική sc. πύλη 592. 

προβλέπειν, προβλέπεσθαι 258. 

προέχεσθαι 264. 

προκόπτειν 251. 

πρός for the simple dat. ? 212, 214; with 
gen. 373; with dat. 395; with acc. 
404 sq.; in circum. 425; verbs com- 
pounded with 432. 

προΞξέρχεσθαι constr. of 427, 432. 

mposéxew τινί sc. τόν νοῦν 593. 

mposhAutos 24, 26, 97. 

mposkuve constr. of 36, 210, 593. 

προςτίθημι adverbial constr. of 468. 

mpospdrytov 25. 

mpospdrws 463. 

mpospépew constr. of 427, 432, 593. 


’ mpospwrety With dat. 36; and ace. 482. 


GREEK INDEX. 


προτωποληπτεῖν 33, 48, 101. 

προσωπολήπτης 10]. 

προσωποληψία 48, 101. 

mpéswrov without art. 122, cf. 174; Hebr. 
use of 607 ; πρόεωπον λαμβάνειν 30, 33. 

προφητεύειν augm. of 71. 

πρύμνα 22. 

πρωΐ 47. 

mpwivds 26. 

πρώρης 62. 

πρῶτος for πρότερος 244; εἷς for 248 sq. 

πτύον 24. 

πτῶμα 23. - 

πύλη ellipsis of 592. 

πῶς 508, 510. 


p past tenses of verbs beginning with 74. 
‘Paya indecl. 61. 

ῥαντίζειν 24, 74, 

ῥάπισμα 25. 

pais 25. 

pedow 89. 

péw 89. 

ῥῆμα without art. 123. 
phoow 22. 

ῥύεσθαι constr. of 197. 
ῥύμη 22, 23. 

Ῥώμη use of art. with 112. 


o and s 41 sq. 

σάββατον inflec. 63; τὰ σάβ. 177. 
σαλπίζω 89; σαλπίζει sc. ὁ σαλπ. 522. 
Σαμάρεια art. with 112. 
odpxwos and σαρκικός 98. 
πᾶσα σάρξ 33. 

σαροῦν 34. 

σεβάζεσθαι 28. 

σημαίνω 89. 

σθενόω 26. 

Σίλας 103. 

σινιάζω 26, 92. 

-σις substantives in 98. 
σιτομέτριον 25. 

σῖτος inflection 63. 
σκανδαλίζειν 33. 
σκάνδαλον 32. 

σκέπτομαι 89. 

oxnvornyla 26, 101. 
σκληροκαρδία 26, 99. 
σκληροτράχηλος 26, 99. 
σκληρύνω 92. 

σκορπίζειν 22. 

σκότος, 6 22, 66. 





665 


-σκω verbs in 92. 

Σολομών inflec. and accent 67. 

Σπανία 25. 

σπείρης 62. 

σπέρμα 30. 

σπῖλος 25. 

σπλάγχνα 18; with gen. 611. 

σπλαγχνίζεσθαι 30, 33 ; constr. of 221, 233. 

σπουδάζω 89. 

στάμνος 23. 

στέγειν 23. 

στήκω 24, 26; with dat. 210. 

στηρίζω 89; στηρίζειν πρόσωπον αὑτοῦ 33. 

στόμα 18, 80. 

στρέφειν for an adverb ? 469. 

στρηνιᾶν 25. 

στρωννύειν ἑαυτῷ 594. 

σύ when expressed 152. 

ovyyevis 69. 

συγκρίνειν 23. 

συγκυρία 24. 

συλλαμβάνειν concipere 593. 

συμβάλλειν τινί or πρός τινα 86. λόγους 593. 

συμμαθητής 35. 

συμπολίτης 25. 

σύν 391; distinguished from μετά 391; 
constr. of verbs compounded with 433. 

-ovyn substantives in 95. 

συνίημι forms of 81. 

συνιοῦσι 81. 

συνίστημι 23. 

συντίθεσθαι 254. 

Συρία art. with 112. 

Συροφοίνισσα, Συροφοινίκισσα 95. 

σχολή 38. 

σώζειν constr. of 197. 

Σώπατρος 103. 


ταμεῖον 24, 94. 

ταπεινοφροσύνη 26, 99. 

ταπεινόφρων 236. 

ταρταροῦν 25. 

ταῦτα referring to a single object 162; 
ταῦτα πάντα and πάντα ταῦτα 548. 

ταχύς comparison of 69. 

τε distinguished from καί 434; re.. .τε 
439; τε... δέ 439; τε καί 489 ; τε γάρ 
448, 539sq.; position of 559; with 
πρῶτον 576. 

τεκνίον accent 52. 

τέκνον with gen. of abstracts 238. 

τελέσω fut. 77. 

τέρας 65. 


666 


τέσσερες etc. 48, 

τέτευχε 89. 

-Tns, -oTns substantives in 94, 

τίθημι forms of 78. 

Τίμων accent 51. 

τίς, τί in indirect quest. and for the relat. 
168 sq. ; for πότερος 169; τίς ἐστιν ὅς 
with indic. 300, and οὐ 481; τί used 
adverbially 142 ; in exclamations 142; 
τί ὅτι 585. 

vis, τι (indef.) not used for εἴ τις 169; with 
substs. and adjs. 170 sq.; position of 
170, 559; τι aliquid (magni) 170; του, 
τῳ not used in N. T. 171; τι as ace. 
with verbs 227. 

Tiros and Tiros 52; never has art. 113, 

τό before entire clauses 109 ; before a word 
as a sound 109, 179; before the infin. 
320; τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν and the like 230. 

τοι 484. 

τοιγαροῦν 445. 

τοίνυν 445, 559. 

τοιοῦτος use of art. with 111. 

τολμᾶν alleged pleonasm of 612 sq. 

-ros verbals in 96 sq. 

τότε as a connective 540; before apod. 
541, 

τοῦτο used adverbially 142; τοῦτο uty... 
τοῦτο δέ so used 142; τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ep- 
exegetical 530. 

tplrov 250. 

Τρόφιμος accent 51. 

τροχός accent 54. 

Tpwds use of art. with 112. 

τυγχάνω 89; constr. of 200; supposed to 
be pleonastic 609. 

τυχόν 355. 

-τωσαν in imperat. 76 sq. 


ὕαλος 22. 

ὑβρίζειν with the ace. 

ὑγιῆ accusative 64. 

ὕδωρ ellipsis of 591. 

derds ellipsis of 592, 

vids θανάτου 33; vids with abstr. gen. 238 ; 
supposed to be omitted 190, 593; ὁ 
υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου not equiv. to ἐγώ 144. 

Ὑμέναιος accent 51. 

-vyw verbs in 92. 

ὑπακούειν εἰς 165. 

ὑπάρχειν with part. 350. 

ὑπέρ with gen. 382 sq.; distinguished from 
περί 383 ; with acc. 403; as an adverb 





GREEK INDEX. 


423; constr. of verbs compounded 
with 433. 

ὑπεράνω 422. 

ὑπερέκεινα 463. 

ὑπερλίαν 422. 

ὑπερῷον 96. 

ὑπό with gen. 364, 368 sq. ; confounded 
with ἀπό 370sq.; with acc. 407; constr. 
of verbs compounded with 433. 

ὑποκάτω 422. 

ὑπομιμνήσκειν constr. of 227. 

ὑποπιάζω for ὑπωπιάζω 43. 

ὑποπόδιον 26. 

ὑπωπιάζω 43. 

ὑστερεῖν 196, 260. 

ὑψοῦν τῇ δεξιᾷ 215. 


φαγεῖν 89; constr. of 198 sq. 

φάγεσαι 89. 

φάγος accent 51. 

φαίνω 89; φανῆναι constr. of 233. 

φαύσκω 90. 

φείδεσθαι constr. of 180, 205. 

φειδομένως 99. 

φειδός 96. 

φέρω 90. 

φεύγειν constr. of 223. 

Φῆλιξ accent 52. 

φησί sc. 6 θεός 522, 588 ; in direct discourse 
558 ; ellipsis of, or of ἔφη 598. 

φθάνειν 23, 90. 

φιάλη 22. 

φοβεῖσθαι constr. of 223. 

φοίνιξ or φοῖνιξ 50. 

φορέσω fut. 77 sq. 

φρυάσσειν 24. 

φυείς 90. 

φυλακίζω 26. 

φυλακτήριον 26. 

φυλάσσειν νόμον 30; φυλακάς 225; φυλάσ- 
σεσθαι constr. of 223; signification of 
253. . 

φυσιοῦσθαι 24. 

φύω intrans. 22, 252; forms of 90. 


φωνεῖν φωνῇ 226. 


χάρις ὑμῖν ete. 549. 
χαίρω 90; constr. of 210, 232; χαίρειν in 
salutation 316. ‘ 


χαρήσομαι 90. 


χαρίζομαι 90, 261, 264. 


χαρίσομαι 90. 
χεῖλος 18, 30, 32. 


GREEK INDEX. 


χειλέων uncontr. 64, 

xeip ellipsis of 592, 

Χερουβίμ. 68. 

xopracew 23. 

χρεωφειλέτης 44. 

χρήζειν constr. of 200. 

χρηματίζειν 23, 260. 

χρῆσθαι constr. of 209 sq. 

χρίειν constr. of 227. 

χρῖσμα accent 50. 

Χριστιανός 95. 

Χριστός and ὁ Χριστός 118; supposed use 
of to intensify 248. 

χρόνος year 177. 

χρυσοδακτύλιος 26. 

-χυσία 93 note. 

χώρα ellipsis of 591. 

χωρίζειν constr. of 197. 

χωρίς 471 ; χωρίς twos εἶναι 465. 


ψεύδεσθαι constr. 212. 

ψεῦσμα 24. 

ψήφισμα ψηφίζεσθαι 225. 

ψιθυριστῆς 24. > 
ψιχίον 24. 

ψυχή never redundant 156; τὸ ψυχικόν 592. 





667 


ψωμίζειν 23; with the acc. 226 note. 

-w in the acc. 62. 

ὠδίν 65. 

ὠθέω 90. 

ὥν as an imperf. part. 841. 

ὠνέομαι aug. of 70, 90. 

ὠνησάμην 70, 90. 

ὠτάριον 24, 96. 

épa without art. 124 ; ellipsis of 591 sq. 

ὡρώμην 88. 

ὡς (not ὥς 462) constr. of 296, 448, 449 ; 
with infin. 318 ; always as (not οὕτως) 
462; before a series 519; before a 
pred. 527 ; supposed pleonastic 617 ; 
force of, particularly before gen. abs. 
617; with a prep. of direction 617 sq.; 
ὡς ... καί 440 ; ὡς ὅτι 618; ds (ὥςπερ) 
ἐνν οὕτως 440; ὡς ἄν 308, 309 note; 
ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν 817, 449. 

ὡσάμην 71. 

ὥςπερ in prot. without apod. 599. 

ὥςτε constr. of 301, 318, 327 ; with a neg- 
ative 480. 

ὠτίον 25. 

ὠφελεῖν constr. of 227. 

ὠφέλιμος constr. of 213. 


ΠῚ. INDEX OF PASSAGES IN THE N.T. EXPLAINED 
OR CITED. 





The Figures refer to Pages; those followed by an Asterisk indicate passages not 
merely referred to or quoted, but commented upon. 


Matt. i. 1 
Matt. i. 3 
Matt. i. 6 
Matt. i. 10 
Matt. i. 11 
Matt. i. 12 
Matt. i. 16 
Matt. i. 17 
Matt. i. 18 
”» > 29 
Matt. i. 19 
Matt. i. 20 
Matt. i. 21 
Matt. i. 22 
Matt. i. 24 
Matt. i. 25 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. ii. 


ἘΣ ἘΣ 


Ee: 
CaN DP OD = 


Matt. ii. 
Matt. ii. 10 
Matt. ii. 12 
Matt. ii. 13 
Matt. ii. 14 
Matt. ii. 16 
Matt. ii. 17 
Matt. ii. 18 
Matt. ii. 20 
Matt. ii. 22 


Matt. iii. 3 
Matt. iii. 4 





125 
366 

67, 190 

67 

187*, 375* 

187* 
366 

110*, 370 


113, 192, 208*, 330, 368, 455* 


465*, 527, 616* 
330 

391*, 401* 

141, 150, 182 
461, 562, 563 

436 

107, 182, 296, 436 


113, 139 
55, 155, 318*, 446* 

68, 111*, 113, 344, 376 

75, 110, 266*, 365 

114, 429 

106 

287, 607 

104, 275, 296, 473, 542 

66, 224 

260, 428, 481 

79, 267, 434 

104, 428 

365, 370, 401* 

61 

222 

175, 446* 

206, 260, 364*, 375, 471, 472 


61 
108, 370, 406*, 523 
668 





Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. iii. 11 
Matt. ri. 12 
Matt. iii. 18 
Matt. iii. 14 
Matt. iii, 15 
Matt. iii. 16 
Matt. iii. 17 


Matt. iv. 1 
Matt. iv. 3 
Matt. iv. 4 
Matt. iv. 5 
Matt. iv. 6 
Matt. iv. 10 
Matt. iv. 11 
Matt. iv. 12 
Matt. i 
Matt. iv. 16 
Matt. iv. 17 
Matt. iv. 18 
Matt. iv. 19 
Matt. iv. 21 
Matt. iv. 
Matt. iv. 
Matt. iv. 


Matt. v. 1 
Matt. v. 2 
Matt. v. 8 
Matt. v. 4 
Matt. v. 5 


68, 268, 438* 

528 

409 

206, 444 

151 

110, 266*, 444 

75, 217, 266*, 337, 412*, 630 
75, 149* 

325 

269, 436* 

269 

147*, 151*, 369* 
132, 232, 278*, 586 


106*, 374, 392, 428 

334*, 541 

87, 280", 377, 389*, 392 
622 
373 

210 

521 

428 

121, 1875, 231*, 590 

147, 247, 602 

422 

177, 403*, 417*, 446 

228, 606 

113, 132, 190 

131, 132, 145, 186, 426, 539 
110, 436, 527, 539 

67, 420, 520, 539 


115, 428 

608 

195, 215, 551, 585 
200, 551 

551, 585 


Matt. v. 6 
Matt. v. 7 
Matt. v. 8 
Matt. v. 9 
Matt. v. 10 
Matt. v. 11 
Matt. v. 13 
Matt. v. 15 
Matt. v. 16 
Matt. v. 17 
Matt. v. 18 
” ΘΒ .23Ὁ 
Matt. v. 19 
Matt. v. 20 
Matt. v. 21 
Matt. v. 22 
Matt. v. 23 
Matt. v. 25 
Matt. v. 26 
Matt. v. 27 
Matt. v. 28 
Matt. v. 31 
Matt. v. 32 
Matt. v. 33 
Matt. v. 34 
Matt. v. 35 
Matt. v. 36 
Matt. v. 37 
Matt. v. 38 
Matt. v. 39 
Matt. v. 40 
Matt. v. 41 
Matt. v. 42 
Matt. v. 44 
Matt. v. 45 
Matt. v. 46 
Matt. v. 48 


Matt. vi. 1 
Mait. vi. 2 
Matt. vi. 3 
Matt. vi. 4 
Matt. vi. 5 
Matt. vi. 6 
Matt. vi. 7 
Matt. vi. 8 
Matt. vi. 9 
Matt. vi. 10 
Matt. vi. 11 
Matt. vi. 12 
Matt. vi. 13 
Matt. vi. 16 
Matt. vi. 17 


N. T. INDEX. 


205*, 551, 585 

551, 585 

215, 551, 585 

122, 229, 551, 585, 615 
120, 551, 585 

222, 551 

114, 298, 388, 541 

78, 436 

287 


127 - 


172, 432, 506, 518, 542, 
552, 612* 

160, 246*, 310, 543, 615 
245*, 477, 506 

85, 210, 219*, 316, 502, 522 
111*, 209, 213*, 455, 621 
455* 
79, 296*, 502 

506 

316 

204 

85 

56, 496 

85, 86, 316 

222, 389*, 481, 488 
397* 

76, 490 

476 

588, 598* 

168, 280*, 481 

147, 209 

280* 

254* 

222 

445*, 457* 

266 

315, 540 


31,121, 259, 329*, 405, 583, 605 
275*, 287, 540 

502, 592 

148, 235 

275*, 310, 315, 467*, 502 
94, 132, 433 

387*, 501 

209, 329*, 372 

121, 533* 

440 

97: 

81, 152, 448: 

197, 501 

56, 275*, 638 

143, 253 





669 

Matt. vi. 18 477 
Matt. vi. 19 501, 594* 
Matt. vi. 20 488, 489 
Matt. vi. 22 114 
Matt. vi. 24 116, 202, 440 
Matt vi. 25 156, 209, 299, 488 
Matt. vi. 26 57, 480, 4875, 514 
Matt. vi. 27 432 
Matt. vi. 28 373, 488 
Matt. vi. 29 110 
Matt. vi. 30 341 
Matt. vi. 31 519 
Matt. vi. 32 200, 548* 
Matt. vi. 34 209, 517, 590 
Matt. vii. 1 476, 477, 501 
Matt. vii. 2 165, 388, 412, 429, 522 
Matt. vii. 4 285, 429 
Matt. vii. 6 388, 4875, 503 
Matt. vii. 7 57, 522, 552, 593* 
Matt. vii. 8 266 
Matt. vii. 9 169*, 227, 310, 512*, 568, 628 
Matt. vii. 10 440, 441* 
Matt. vii. 11 139 
Matt. vii. 12 3836*, 455 
Matt. vii. 13 73 
Matt. vii. 14 143* 
Matt. vii. 15 384 
Matt. vii. 16 279:, 370, 372*, 411, 420, 
“ “oe 511, 520% 
Matt. vii. 18 488 
Matt. vii. 21 171* 
Matt. vii. 22 71, 110, 510* 
Matt. vii. 23 370, 426, 427 
Matt. vii. 24 71, 155, 209. 225, 279", 574 
Matt. vii. 25 73, 275, 432, 436, 539 
Matt. vii. 27 436 
Matt. vii. 28 296, 393, 608 
Matt. vii. 29 348, 617* 
Matt. viii. 1 147, 220*, 367, 602 
Matt. viii. 2 76, 549 
Matt. viii. 3 607 
Matt. viii. 4 106, 146*, 147*, 253* 
Matt. viii. 5 61 
Matt. viii. 7 607 
Matt. viii. 8 57, 61, 155, 259, 335, 337, 407 
Matt. viii. 9 407* 
Matt. viii. 11 176, 552 
Matt. viii. 12 106 
Matt. viii. 13 61, 259 
Matt. viii. 19 117, 310, 576 
Matt. viii. 20 299*, 510 


670 


Matt. viii. 21 
Matt. viii. 22 
Matt. viii. 23 
Matt. viii. 24 
Matt. viii. 25 
Matt. viii. 28 
Matt. viii. 29 
Matt. viii. 30 
Matt. viii. 31 
Matt. viii. 32 
Matt. viii. 33 
Matt. viii. 34 


Matt. ix. 
Matt. ix. 
Matt. ix. 
Matt. ix. 
Matt. ix. 
Matt. ix. 
Matt. ix. 
Matt. ix. 9 

Matt. ix. 10 
Matt. ix. 12 
Matt. ix. 13 
Matt. ix. 14 
Matt. ix. 15 
Matt. ix. 16 
Matt. ix. 17 
Matt. ix. 18 
Matt. ix. 20 
Matt. ix. 22 
Matt. ix. 25 
Matt. ix. 27 
Matt. ix. 29 
Matt. ix. 30 
Matt. ix. 31 
Matt. ix. 34 
Matt. ix. 35 
Matt. ix. 36 
Matt. ix. 38 


aourr ὦ bd = 


Matt. x. 1 
Matt. x. 2 
Matt. x. 4 
Matt. x. 5 
Matt. x. 8 
Matt. x. 9 
Matt. x. 10 
Matt. x. 11 
Matt. x. 18 
Matt. x. 14 
Matt. x. 16 
Matt. x. 17 


N. T. INDEX. 


576*, 638 
880, 576 
429, 539 

539 

539 

220, 366, 480 
87, 124, 330, 372 
188 

292, 545 
311*, 381 
416 

110, 338 


154, 539 
80, 374, 539 

539 

169, 539 

80, 169 

47, 374, 563*, 580*, 620* 
111, 175* 

608 

608 

495 

66, 271*, 495, 496* 
227, 518 

408*, 427, 614* 

394 

605 

117, 442, 545, 607 

230 

183, 370, 549 

296 

221 

401* 

72, 501 

104 

389 

181, 145, 186, 548, 610 
75, 236, 349 

198, 338 


185 
132 

113 

187* 

537 

489, 493 
194, 206, 585 
307*, 308, 543 
293 

129, 429, 488 
413 

213 


Matt. x. 31 





Matt. x. 18 
Matt. x. 19 
Matt. x. 20 
Matt. x. 21 
Matt. x. 23 
Matt. x. 24 
Matt. x. 25 
Matt. 
Matt. 


2 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. x. 42 


MM KKM MK OM MO 
iv) 
nw 


Matt. xi. 1 
Matt. xi. 3 
Matt. xi. 5 
Matt. xi. 7 
Matt. xi. 8 
Matt. xi. 1 
Matt. xi. 12 
Matt. xi. 13 
Matt. xi. 16 
Matt. xi. 17 
Matt. xi. 18 
Matt. xi. 19 
Matt. xi. 21 
Matt. xi. 23 
Matt. xi. 24 
Matt. xi. 25 
Matt. xi. 26 
Matt. xi. 27 
Matt. xi. 29 


Matt. xii. 1 
Matt. xii. 2 
Matt. xii. 3 
Matt. xii. 4 
Matt. xii. 7 
Matt. xii. 9 
Matt. xii. 10 
Matt. xii. 11 
Matt. xii. 12 
Matt. xii. 18 
Matt. xii. 14 
Matt. xii. 15 
Matt. xii. 18 
Matt. xii. 19 
196 


407 
168, 299, 309 
108, 497, 513 
64, 213, 409, 514 
506 
403 
337*, 628* 
300*, 481, 639 
85, 374, 455, 543 
83,223, 439 
172*, 206, 407 
131 
226*, 455* 
495, 501* 

82, 382 
403 
214, 234 

310, 591 


145, 608 

341 

229, 260 

73, 106*, 318 
227, 442, 591 
59, 244*, 384 
259, 363, 370 
71, 634 

209, 432 

437 

488, 552 

51, 371 

804* 

153 

121 


870, 428, 457, 459, 552, 630 


182 
310, 508 
215 


63, 77, 116, 118, 177, 218 
85, 332, 385 

77, 519 

131, 198 

66, 304* 

146* 

203, 319*, 332, 509* 
169, 202 

63, 301, 444 

72, 528 

288 

147* 

156, 278* 

82, 488 


Matt. xii. 20 
Matt. xii. 21 
Matt. xii. 23 
Matt. xii, 24 
Matt. xii. 25 
Matt. xii. 26 
Matt. xii. 27 
Matt. xii. 28 
Matt. xii. 29 
Matt. xii. 30 
Matt. xii. 32 
Matt. xii. 33 
Matt. xii. 35 
Matt. xii. 36 
Matt. xii. 87 
Matt. xii. 38 
Matt. xii. 39 
Matt. xii. 40 


Matt. xiii. 2 

Matt. xiii. 3 

Matt. xiii. 4 

Matt. xiii. 6 

Matt. xiii. 13 
Matt. xiii. 14 
Matt. xiii. 15 
Matt. xiii. 16 
Matt. xiii. 18 
Matt. xiii. 19 
Matt. xiii. 20 
Matt. xiii. 22 
Matt. xiii. 23 
Matt. xiii. 24 
Matt. xiii. 25 
Matt. xiii. 26 
Matt. xiii. 27 
Matt. xiii. 28 
Matt. xiii. 29 
Matt. xiii. 30 
Matt. xiii. 31 
Matt. xiii. 33 
Matt. xiii. 34 
Matt. xiii. 41 
Matt. xiii. 44 
Matt. xiii. 45 
Matt. xiii. 47 
Matt. xiii. 48 
Matt. xiii. 49 


N. T. INDEX. 


70, 82 

75, 514 

511 

196 

252, 518 

173*, 279, 292 
441* 

90, 292, 445, 541 
477 

376, 483* 

307, 488*, 499, 595* 
368 

106, 185, 174, 524 
148, 181, 574 
368, 441, 609 
371 

60, 437 

540, 541 

228, 377*, 397* 
67, 121, 376 

431 

274 

112, 150, 160 


408* 

106*, 325, 333 
403* 

57, 120 

81 

61, 82, 211, 354, 466 
494, 503 

585 

185* 

483 

377 

369 

81 

524* 

175, 829", 385, 398 
“84 

510, 548 

285 

104, 470, 476 
225 

607 

607 

268* 

437 

57, 110, 371 
523 

110 

428 

75 





Matt. xiii. 52 
Matt. xiii. 53 
Matt. xiii. 54 
Matt. xiii. 55 
Matt. xiii. 56 


Matt. xiii. 57. 


Matt. xiii. 58 


Matt. xiv. 1 
Matt. xiv. 2 
Matt. xiv. 3 
Matt. xiv. 6 
Matt. xiv. 7 
Matt. xiv. 8 
Matt. xiv. 11 
Matt. xiv. 13 
Matt. xiv. 14 
Matt. xiv. 15 
Matt. xiv. 19 
Matt. xiv. 20 
Matt. xiv. 21 
Matt. xiv. 22 
Matt. xiv. 23 
Matt. xiv. 24 
Matt. xiv. 25 
Matt. xiv. 26 
Matt. xiv. 28 
Matt. xiv. 29 
Matt. xiv. 31 
Matt. xiv. 33 
Matt. xiv. 34 
Matt. xiv. 36 


Matt. xv. 
Matt. xv. 
Matt. xv. 
Matt. xv. 
Matt. xv. 11 
Matt. xv. 16 
Matt. xv. 17 
Matt. xv. 18 
Matt. xv. 19 
Matt. xv. 20 
Matt. xv. 23 
Matt. xv. 26 
Matt. xv. 27 
Matt. xv. 28 
Matt. xv. 29 
Matt. xv. 30 
Matt. xv. 32 
Matt. xv. 34 
Matt. xv. 35 
Matt. xv. 38 


κὰ σὲ Pw 


611 


211, 429 
589, 608 
539 
539 
405, 539 
539 
539 


61, 113, 185 
123 

202, 275, 414* 
218 

377* 

558 

392 

216 

233, - 141, 147 
287 

71, 407, 426, 428 
ἢ 528 
552 

297, 833", 429 
330, 428 

411» 

874 

871 

880 

8695 

2015 

607 

121 

8065 


88, 148, 198, 254, 8085 
816, 339, 466 

127, 506, 600* 

71 

106, 429, 495 

464* 

596* 

429 

520 

548 

173*, 595* 

319, 513 

199, 369* 

549, 592 

403* 

403* 

168*, 233, 409, 502, 563 
548* 

74, 428 

552 


. Xvi. 6 
ei. 7 
. Xvi. 9 
oa 


xvi. 13 


. XVii. 
. XVii. 


XVii. 


. XVii. 
. XVii. 
. XVii. 
. XVii. 
. XVil. 
. XVii. 
. XVii. 
. XVii. 
. XVii. 
. XVil. 
. XVil. 
. XVI. 
. XVii. 
. Xvii. 
. XVil. 
. XVil. 


. XViii. 
. XViii. 
. XViii. 
. XVili. 
. XViii. 
. XVili. 
. XVili. 
. Xvili. 
. Xviii. 
. XViii. 
. XViii. 
. XViii. 
. Xviii. 
. XVili. 
Xviii. 
» XVili. 


. Xvi. 14 
. Xvi. 
. Xvi. 
. Xvi. 
. Xvi. 
. xvi. 20 
. Xvi. 21 
. XVi. 22 
. XVi. 26 
. Xvi. 
. Xvi. 28 


N. T INDEX. 


223, 580 

598* 

205 

580* 

529* 

105, 521 

114 

549, 552 

125, 155, 394, 443, 638 
32, 65, 121 
334*, 477 

83, 369, 371, 422 
211*, 280*, 507* 
87, 131*, 564* 
564* 

198, 506, 508 


428 

437 

433 

66, 173, 292, 319 
71, 199, 278%, 431 
74, 125, 174 

123, 366 

265* 

218*, 369 

210 

155 

84 

83, 202 

149* 

152, 457 

247*, 471 

85 

129, 370*, 540 
364, 561 


420, 


244, 445 
4695, 506 
45, 257, 308 
393* 

8375, 611* 
371 

241, 320, 518 
177 

178 

211 

232, 293 
117 

82, 87 

375, 440 
106, 298 
163 





Matt. xviii. 21 
Matt. xviii. 22 
Matt. xviii. 23 
Matt. xviii. 24 
Matt. xviii. 25 
Matt. xviii. 27 
Matt. xviii. 28 
Matt. xviii. 29 
Matt. xviii. 31 
Matt. xviii. 32 
Matt. xviii. 33 


Maw. xix. 1 
Matt. xix. 2 
Matt. xix. 3 
Matt. xix. 5 
Matt. xix. 6 
Matt. xix. 8 
Matt. xix. 9 


Matt. xix. 10 
Matt. xix. 11 
Matt. xix. 12 
Matt. xix. 13 
Matt. xix. 17 
Matt. xix. 18 
Matt. xix. 19 
Matt. xix. 21 
Matt. xix. 22 
Matt. xix. 24 
Matt. xix. 25 
Matt. xix. 26 
Matt. xix. 28 
Matt. xix. 29 


Matt. xx. 1 
Matt. xx. 2 
Matt. xx. 3 
Matt. xx. 8 
Matt. xx. 9 
Mait. xx. 10 
Matt. xx. 12 
Matt. xx. 13 
Matt. xx. 15 
Matt. xx. 18 
Matt. xx. 19 
Matt. xx. 20 
Matt. xx. 21 
Matt. xx. 22 
Matt: xx. 28 
Matt. xx. 24 
Matt. xx. 25 
Matt. xx. 28 
Matt. xx. 29 


82, 233, 355 
250% 

330, 376, 523 
117* 

301, 4845 
204, 221 
117, 202, 209 
545 

455 

183, 549 

440 


608 

147% 

116, 331, 402*, 509 
183, 262, 522* 
301 

124, 405* 
394 

292, 319, 465 
158, 171 

122 

270, 288% 
292 

87, 109, 502 
316 

607 

843, 349* 
319 

445 

395 

408, 409 

43, 200 


213*, 254, 523 
368*, 376, 433 

124, 384, 406 

621 

398 

$21, 437* 

209 

206 

509 

210 

88, 218 

170*, 227 

122, 125, 173, 367, 552 
. 32, 168 

451, 582 

64, 232 

613 

318, 364, 383 

67 


Matt. xx. 30 
Matt. xx. 31 


Matt. xxi. 
Matt. xxi. 
Matt. xxi. 
Matt. xxi. 
Matt. xxi. 


Matt. xxii. 


" Matt. 


oon Dio & WO 


Matt. xxii. 
Matt. xxii. 
Matt. xxii. 
Matt. xxii. 
Matt. xxii. 


1 


N. T. INDEX. 


- 87, 251, 404 
549 


182, 396 

155* 

453* 

563, 564* 

85, 155, 156*, 430, 437 
564 

143, 175* 

270, 417, 515 
551, 585 

370 

31, 267, 615 
117*, 375*, 508 
276* 

261 

307* 

220, 441 

173, 227 

64, 169 

71, 523 

105 

244 

221 

308* 

83, 144*, 637* 
164, 238, 365*, 385 


602 

176 

56 

126 

154, 528 


552 
95, 206, 424, 463, 499 
333, 509 

74 

267 

482 

84, 342, 475* 

195, 385, 446 

489 

488 


85 





Matt. xxii. 44 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Xxiii. 
Xxiii. 
Xxiil. 
Xxiii. 
Xxili. 
Xxiii. 
XXiii. 


. 44 


Matt. xxiv. 45 


673 
81 


78, 430 

452*, 456 

155 

488, 590* 

488 

253, 280*, 543 
552, 592* 

88 

66, 520 

201* 

63, 209 

80, 304, 523 
151, 212*, 301 
311*, 437* 
223*, 285 


64, 84, 419, 459, 594*, 598 


61, 129, 459, 462, 587 
548 

230, 330 

456, 506, 551 


429 

300, 409, 481*, 

504 

185*, 501* 

41, 401 

213, 348 

173 

110 

160 

79, 563 

407, 412 

362, 368, 501, 502, 629* 
417, 502 
207, 489 
123, 499, 505 
171, 234, 477 
65, 333, 585 
175 

176 

374 

247, 377 

90 

123, 176, 392, 548 
508 

506, 552 

164* 

116, 173, 266*, 384 
95 

57, 165 

$25, 524 


363, 


674 


Matt. xxiv. 46 
Matt. xxiv. 50 


Matt. xxv. 1 

Matt. xxv. 6 

Matt. xxv. 9 

Matt. xxv. 11 
Matt. xxv. 13 
Matt. xxv. 14 
Matt. xxv. 15 
Matt. xxv. 16 
Matt. xxv. 19 
Matt. xxv. 20 
Matt. xxv. 21 
Matt. xxv. 23 
Matt. xxv. 24 
Matt. xxv. 26 
Matt. xxv. 27 
Matt. xxv. 29 
Matt. xxv. 32 
Matt. xxv. 33 
Matt. xxv. 34 
Matt. xxv. 35 
Matt. xxv. 36 
Matt. xxv. 37 
Matt. xxv. 40 
Matt. xxy. 41 
Matt. xxv. 45 


Matt. xxvi. 1 

Matt. xxvi. 2 

Matt. xxvi. 4 

Matt. xxvi. 5 

Matt. xxvi. 8 

Matt. xxvi. 9 

Matt. xxvi. 10 
Matt. xxvi. 11 
Matt. xxvi. 12 
Matt. xxvi. 15 
Matt. xxvi. 16 
Matt. xxvi. 17 
Matt. xxvi. 18 
Matt. xxvi. 23 
Matt. xxvi. 24 
Matt. xxvi. 25 
Matt. xxvi. 26 
Matt. xxvi. 28 
Matt. xxvi. 29 
Matt. xxvi. 32 
Matt. xxvi. 33 
Matt. xxvi. 34 
Matt. xxvi. 35 
Matt. xxvi. 36 


279 

207 

209, 504*, 582, 598* 
610 

489 

154, 599 
154, 401 
72 

433 

87, 393* 
409, 524 
30 

159* 

549 
282*, 303 
483 

75, 427 
122, 552 
189*, 370 
77, 80, 84 
73, 74 
261 

409 

122 

261, 409 


608 
265*, 329 

66 

582, 596* 

397 

70, 206, 282 

72, 397 

446 

* 376* 

176 

422 

66, 218, 385 

75 

414*, 429% 

989", 305, 3795 
85 

106, 114, 116, 403 
114, 182, 191, 341, 411 
422 

8295 

292*, 582 

330 

506, 571 

472 





Matt. 


177 

122, 156 
73, 74, 125 
267, 330 
477 

83 

71, 424* 
311* 
275% 
167*, 275, 409 
607 

436, 596 
285* 
ie 

603 

270, 438* 
437 

432, 608* 
298, 382 
257 

202 

74, 105*, 125, 430 
66 

147, 178* 
545 

235 

88, 457* 


318, 382 
138 

47, 76 

253*, 385, 414: 
206, 211*, 368* 
590 

61 

261 

432 

173* 

401* 

268, 399* 

582 

148, 222, 444, 455* 
447* 

47, 113, 197 
587 

226 

182, 366, 408, 592 
430 

88, 226 

182 

166 

319, 880, 376 
257 


Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 


Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 


Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 
Matt. xxviii. 


Mark i. 1 
Mark i. 4 
Mark i. 5 
Mark i. 6 
Mark i. 7 
Mark i. 8 
Mark i. 9 
Mark i. 10 
Mark i. 13 
Mark i. 14 
Mark:i. 15 
Mark i. 16 
Mark i. 17 


37 
38 
39 


~~ (2 ΟΟὉ  ὧἱἵ ὦ bys = 


N. T. INDEX. 


275*, 340 
122, 173 
222, 268 

79, 135, 292, 353* 
571 

214, 233, 409 
175*, 227 
43, 111, 124, 407 
63, 169 

79, 559 

607 

164, 226 

603 

514 

270* 

275 

66, 190 

370 

113 

427 

113 

403 

123 

377 


203, 248, 471 


377 
296 
176 
293, 375 


396, 471 
105* 
116 
28, 141, 192, 251, 314 


125, 187 
188*, 350* 
438 

86, 198 
148, 268, 319 
150. 

416 

554* 

60, 376, 539 
329 

213 

413, 417* 
606, 608 





Mark i. 22 
Mark i. 24 
Mark i. 26 
Mark i. 27 
Mark i. 29 
Mark i. 31 
Mark i. 32 
Mark i. 34 
Mark i. 35 
Mark i. 38 
Mark i. 39 
Mark i. 40 
Mark i. 41 
Mark i. 42 
Mark i. 44 
Mark i. 45 


Mark ii. 1 
Mark ii. 2 
Mark ii. 4 
Mark ii. 5 
Mark ii. 6 
Mark ii. 8 
Mark ii. 9 
Mark ii. 10 
Mark ii. 13 
Mark ii. 14 
Mark ii. 15 
Mark ii. 16 
Mark ii. 18 
Mark ii. 19 
Mark ii. 21 
Mark ii. 23 
Mark ii. 24 
Mark ii. 25 
Mark ii. 26 
Mark ii. 27 


Mark iii. 2 
Mark iii. 3 
Mark iii. 5 
Mark iii. 6 
Mark iii. 7 
Mark iii. 8 
Mark iii. 9 
Mark iii. 10 
Mark iii. 11 
Mark iii. 13 
Mark iii. 14 
Mark iii. 15 
Mark iii. 16 
Mark iii. 17 
Mark iii. 18 


675 


232, 437 
66, 585, 626 

164 

436 

61 

268 

84, 106, 120 

81, 85,.145 
46, 71, 608* 

46, 558 

416 

76, 210, 606 

344 

427 

146*, 313, 499 
86, 392, 480, 524 


3805, 413, 415*, 539, 595 
405, 480 
330, 473 


66, 608 
527 

128, 457, 585 

128, 145, 348* 

332, 386 

524 

116, 256*, 323*, 578* 
612* 

77, 150 

375, 439* 

145, 270 


299* 
234 

72, 232, 313, 393 
299 

396 

67 

336, 4338 

426, 430 

309*, 433, 514 
428 

318, 579 

579 

182, 276*, 564, 579* 
132, 564*, 579 
564, 579 


676 


Mark iii. 19 
Mark iii. 20 
Mark iii. 21 
Mark iii. 22 
Mark iit. 24 
Mark iii. 26 
Mark iii. 27 
Mark iii. 30 
Mark iii. 34 


Mark iy. 1 

Mark iv. 3 

Mark iv. 4 

Mark iv. 10 
Mark iy. 12 
Mark iy. 13 
Mark iv. 19 
Mark iy. 21 
Mark iv. 22 
Mark iv. 25 
Mark iv. 28 
Mark iv. 29 
Mark iv. 30 
Mark iv. 31 
Mark iv. 32 
Mark iv. 33 
Mark iv. 37 
Mark iv. 38 
Mark iy. 39 
Mark iv. 41 


Mark v. 2 

Mark v. 3 

Mark v. 4 

Mark v. 5 

Mark vy. 7 

Mark v. 9 

Mark v. 10 
Mark v. 11 
Mark v. 13 
Mark v. 14 
Mark ν. 15 
Mark v. 16 
Mark v. 18 
Mark v. 19 
Mark v. 21 
Mark v. 23 
Mark v. 25 
Mark νυ. 26 
Mark v. 27 
Mark νυν. 29 
Mark v. 30 
Mark vy. 33 


N. T. INDEX. 


579 

480, 489* 
277*, 366* 
277 

145, 252 
272 

293 

445 

406 


405* 

543 

514, 608 

227, 270 

459, 461*, 494, 503* 
279 

192*, 369 

127, 287, 430, 511 
235 

446 

464, 528 

251* 

212, 517 

133, 242 

242 

111 

251*, 430 

150 

812, 315*, 538 
224 


147, 220 
330, 490, 499 
50, 329, 334 
349 

585 

145 

334* 

349, 395 
514, 562 


267 

298 

270, 336 

221 

407 

87, 289, 315 

184*, 344 

844, 366*, 486, 629 
844 

259 

155, 201, 413, 414*, 554* 
110, 433 





Mark vy. 34 
Mark vy. 37 
Mark y. 39 
Mark y. 40 
Mark y. 41 
Mark vy. 42 
Mark vy. 43 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark yi. 
Mark vi. 13 
Mark vi. 14 
Mark vi. 16 
Mark vi. 17 
Mark vi. 19 
Mark vi. 21 
Mark vi. 23 


KOON Oar ὦ DW = 


= 


Mark vi. 25 
Mark vi. 31 
Mark vi. 32 
Mark vi. 34 
Mark vi. 36 
Mark vi. 37 
Mark vi. 39 
Mark vi. 40 
Mark vi. 41 
Mark vi. 45 
Mark vi. 46 
Mark vi. 47 
Mark vi. 48 
Mark vi. 52 


| Mark vi. 56 
268 | 


Mark vii. 2 
Mark vii. 3 
Mark vii. 4 
Mark vii. 6 
Mark vii. 1 
Mark vii. 12 
Mark vii. 13 
Mark vii. 14 
Mark vii. 15 
Mark vii. 17 
Mark vii. 18 
Mark vii. 19 


79 

499 

495* 

159 

141, 182 
196, 446, 456, 477 
477 

267 

344, 607 
114, 126 

420 ᾿ 
70, 148 

232 

249* 

816, 545, 578* 
579 

313 

227 

123 

128, 164, 628 
84, 118 

70, 330, 593* 
128, 218 

64 


336*, 592 

71 

216 

233 

168* 

152* 

229*, 249, 392, 464* 
74, 249, 398, 401, 464* 
145 

298 

141 

123 

330, 406* 

392 

201, 306*, 584* 


530, 562 
253, 254, 562 
121, 319*, 621* 


199 

91, 114, 160, 429 
270 

91, 596* 

532, 588", 624 


Mark vii. 20 
Mark vii. 24 
Mark vii. 25 
Mark vii. 26 
Mark vii. 27 
Mark vii. 28 
Mark vii. 31 
Mark vii. 82 
Mark vii. 34 
Mark vii. 35 
Mark vii. 36 
Mark vii. 37 


Mark viii. 1 
Mark viii. 2 
Mark viii. 3 
Mark viii. 4 
Mark viii. 6 
Mark viii. 7 
Mark viii. 8 
Mark viii. 11 
Mark viii. 12 
Mark viii. 15 
Mark viii. 17 
Mark viii. 19 
Mark viii. 22 
Mark viii. 23 
Mark viii. 26 
Mark viii. 27 
Mark viii. 29 
Mark viii. 31 
Mark viii. 34 
Mark viii. 35 
Mark viii. 38 


Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark’ ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 


omMmnrarh ONY = 


-- μὰ μι μὰ 
ῳ ὦ οἱ τ᾽ 


to 
ς 


N. T. INDEX. 


“160 

487, 608 

148, 432, 602 
95, 280, 336, 562 


428 
270, 622 
150, 240, 608 
118 


526 

888, 409, 563 
87, 125 

874, 529, 605 
288*, 344, 428 
548* 

529* 

842, 365 
500* 

223, 313 
108, 174, 528 
213* 

149%, 336 
509 

489* 

187* 

114 

370 

168 

83 

221, 308 


79 

116, 267 

75, 350* 

348 

66 

299 

114, 313, 431 
451*, 499 
123, 297, 301, 367 
123 

167%, 4575 
78, 409, 462* 
218, 540 

515, 516, 554* 
278* 

307, 487 

83, 549 

568*, 632 





Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 


Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 


Mark x. 
Mark x. 
Mark x. 
Mark x. 
Mark x. 
Mark x. 


Mark x. 
Mark x. 
Mark x. 
Mark x. 
Mark x. 
Mark x. 
Mark x. 
Mark x. 
Mark x. 


Mark x. 
Mark x. 
Mark x. 
Mark x. 
Mark x. 
Mark x. 
Mark x. 
Mark x 
Mark x. 
Mark x. 


Mark xi. 
Mark xi. 
Mark xi. 
Mark xi. 
Mark xi. 


677 


76, 233, 313, 442 
109 

155 

142, 182 

526 

149, 202 

143, 147, 149, 457 
336* 

244 


1115, 497 
313 

382, 383 
144, 226, 506 
243, 432 
241, 818 

24a 

320 

390* 


116, 118, 342 
124 

432* 

415* 

84 

270, 288, 522* 


143 
210, 270, 348 
501 

313, 430, 470* 
214, 233 

437 


678 


Mark xi. 8 

Mark xi. 9 

Mark xi. 10 
Mark xi. 12 
Mark xi. 13 
Mark xi. 14 
Mark xi. 15 
Mark xi. 16 
Mark xi. 17 
Mark xi. 18 
Mark xi. 20 
Mark xi. 21 
Mark xi. 22 
Mark xi. 23 
Mark xi. 24 
Mark xi. 25 
Mark xi. 27 
Mark xi. 28 
Mark xi. 29 
Mark xi. 81 
Mark xi. 32 
Mark xi. 33 


Mark xii. 2 
Mark xii. 4 
Mark xii. 5 
Mark xii. 7 
Mark xii. 1 
Mark xii. τῷ 
Mark xii. 13 
Mark xii. 14 
Mark xii. 16 
Mark xii. 17 
Mark xii. 18 
Mark xii. 19 
Mark xii. 20 
Mark xii. 23 
Mark xii. 24 
Mark xii. 25 
Mark xii. 26 
Mark xii. 28 


Mark xii. 30 
Mark xii. 32 
Mark xii. 32 
Mark xii. 33 
Mark xii. 34 
Mark xii. 36 
Mark xii. 38 
Mark xii. 39 
Mark xii. 40 
Mark xii. 41 
Mark xii. 44 


N. T INDEX. 


396, 417 

128 

113 

77 

300*, 445, 596* 
476, 499, 501* 
267 

81 

267, 276 

128, 232, 270, 299 
424* 

271, 276 

186 

261, 561 

306 

309* 

128, 207 

438 

437 

579 

545, 579*, 626 
84 


456, 199, 288, 365* 
468 

105, 583* 

85, 114, 195 
238 

330, 437, 561* 
128 

285*, 474*, 509 
85 

282, 393 

267 

289 

475 

605* 

161* 

121, 123 

63, 376*, 585 
178*, 248 


143, 368 

239 

85, 425* 

118, 127, 420 

499, 626 

81 

183, 223, 384, 468", 577 
183 


160, 183*, 532, 564, δ79 


268 
528 





Mark xiii. 1 

Mark xiii. 2 

Mark xiii. 8 

Mark xiii. 4 

Mark xiii. 7 

Mark xiii. 9 

Mark xiii. 10 
Mark xiii. 11 
Mark xiii. 14 
Mark xiii. 15 
Mark xiii. 16 
Mark xiii, 17 
Mark xiii. 19 
Mark xiii. 20 
Mark xiii. 22 
Mark xiii. 23 
Mark xiii. 25 
Mark xiii. 27 
Mark xiii. 28 
Mark xiii. 29 
Mark xiii. 30 
Mark xiii. 32 
Mark xiii. 33 
Mark xiii. 34 


Mark xiv. 1 
Mark xiv. ἃ 
Mark xiv. 3 
Mark xiv. 4 
Mark xiv. 5 
Mark xiv. 6 
Mark xiv. 7 
Mark xiv. 8 
Mark xiv. 9 
Mark xiv. 11 
Mark xiv. 12 
Mark xiv. 18 


Mark xiv. 15 
Mark xiv. 19 
Mark xiv. 20 
Mark xiv. 21 
Mark xiv. 22 
Mark xiv. 94 
Mark xiv. 25 
Mark xiv. 27 
Mark xiv. 29 
Mark xiv. 31 
Mark xiv. 32 
Mark xiv. 83 
Mark xiv. 35 
Mark xiv. 36 
Mark xiv. 37 


117, 526 

409, 506 

415 

85 

50] 

152, 168, 375, 416* 
213 

114, 299, 313, 501 
79, 396*, 412, 541 
431, 488, 502 
"415, 417 

128 

124, 148, 506 
107, 304* 

- 888 

152 

133, 348 

121, 125 

90, 313 

123, 605 

506 

129, 373 

84 

462 


299, 388, 424 
456, 503, 596* 
97*, 188, 381*, 544 
349* 

70, 206, 250 
72, 218, 524 
222 

467* 

307 

331 

269, 285, 296 
83, 188 


313, 525 
249 

429 

320, 545 
57, 116, 345 
411 

468 

57 

» 152, 582* 
331, 506 
297* 

118 

’ 876*, 432 


58, 168, 482, 442, 584 


549 


Mark xiv. 38 
Mark xiv. 40 
Mark xiv. 43 
Mark xiv. 44 
Mark xiv. 46 
Mark xiv. 47 
Mark xiv. 49 
Mark xiv. 51 
Mark xiv. 52 
Mark xiv. 53 
Mark xiv. 54 
Mark xiv. 55 
Mark xiv. 58 
Mark xiv. 60 
Mark xiv. 61 
Mark xiv. 64 
Mark xiv. 65 
Mark xiv. 67 
Mark xiv. 68 
“Mark xiv. 69 
Mark xiv. 71 
Mark xiv. 72 


Mark xv. 1 
Mark xv. 2 
Mark xv. 3 
Mark xv. 4 
Mark xv. 5 
Mark xv. 6 
Mark xv. 7 
Mark xv. 8 
Mark xv. 
Mark xy. 12 
Mark xv. 13 
Mark xv. 14 
Mark xy. 15 
Mark xv. 16 
Mark xv. 17 
Mark xy. 19 
Mark xv. 21 
Mark xv. 24 
Mark xv. 25 
Mark xv. 30 
Mark xv. 31 
Mark xv. 33 
Mark xv. 34 
Mark xv. 38 
Mark xv, 39 
Mark xv. 40 
Mark xv. 41 
Mark xv. 43 
Mark xv. 44 
Mark xv. 45 


N. T. INDEX. 


313 
83, 299 

128, 365* 

72, 275, 313 
275 

96; 117, 118, 253, 254 
317*, 620 
118 

223 

215* 

348, 433 

71, 270 

345 

118, 123, 511 
261 

199 

430 

80, 145 

490 

79 

88 

205 


113, 128* 
114 

203 

499 

499 

269 

73 

584 

72 

165, 222 

144 

113 

113 

166* 

78, 226 

430 

121* 

408*, 628 
57, 124, 126, 436*, 539 
79, 313 

331, 571 
126 

226 

603 

591* 

190, 603 

140 

113, 348 
272*, 298, 542 
113, 365, 371 


Mark xiv. 70 





Mark xv. 46 
Mark xv. 47 


Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 11 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 17 
Mark xvi. 
Mark xvi. 19 


Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 
Luke i. 


Luke i. 


Luke i. 


caourwnd = 


See ee oe 
ano, ὦ ND 


20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 


Luke i. 34 


Luke i. 


35 


Luke i. 36 


Luke i. 


87 


Luke i. 38 
Luke i. 39 


269 


ῷῶ ὦ “ δ᾽ οἱ αὶ ὦ ἢ »ῷ 


12 
1ὅ 


18 


679 


426, 427 
190, 268 


113, 190, 276 
248, 343* 
362*, 364*, 366, 561 
271, 446 
345* 

538 

438, 521 
452* 

73 

259 

121 

124, 314 

524 

506 

428 


276*, 448*, 541, 545, 613* 
545 

545 

165, 288 

125 

127 

329, 608 

50, 200*, 319, 321, 324, 353* 
430 

182 

90, 211, 232 
68, 506 

61, 146, 432 
152 

164, 349, 364*, 486*, 610 
232*, 515 

70, 150* 

296, 540 

88 

57, 422, 445 

219 

78 

585 

161, 299 

365* 

593*, 607* 

113 

206, 409 

480 

178, 430 

64, 69, 110 

171, 173*, 280*, 395 

427 

591, 608 


318, 


680 


Luke i. 40 
Luke i. 41 
Luke i. 42 
Luke i. 43 
Luke i. 44 
Luke i. 45 
Luke i. 46 
Luke i. 47 
Luke i. 48 
Luke i. 51 
Luke i. 53 
Luke i. 54 
Luke i. 55 
Luke i. 57 
Luke i. 58 
Luke i. 59 
Luke i. 62 
Luke i. 64 
Luke i. 66 
Luke i. 67 
Luke i. 68 
Luke i. 70 
Luke i. 72 
Luke i. 73 
Luke i. 74 
Luke i. 75 
Luke i. 76 
Luke i. 78 
Luke i. 79 


Luke ii. 1 
Luke ii. 2 
Luke ii. 4 
Luke ii. 5 
Luke ii. 7 
Luke ii. 8 

Luke ii. 10 
Luke ii. 11 
Luke ii. 12 
Luke ii. 13 
Luke ii. 14 
Luke ii. 15 
Luke ii. 16 
Luke ii. 17 
Luke ii. 18 
Luke ii. 20 
Luke ii. 21 
Luke ii. 22 
Luke ii. 23 
Luke ii. 24 
Luke ii. 25 
Luke ii. 26 
Luke ii. 27 


N. T. INDEX. 


61 
608 

246*, 551 
337*, 338 
386 

585 

639 

393, 639 

75, 430 

125, 277*, 388 
201, 228 

202 

562, 577* 
324 

128 

228, 269*, 394*, 410 
109, 308* 

72, 622* 

174 

71 

469", 551 
132, 562, 606 
164, 205, 376 


164, 225, 226, 326*, 577, 628* 


197, 627 
230, 821, 386 
152, 432, 607, 615 
611 

89, 431 


254*, 319, 365, 429, 534, 608 


244* 

125, 329, 330, 364* 
73 

211*, 385 

225, 349, 409 

208 

125 

118, 345* 

68, 526 

120 

427 

4, 113, 439 

132 

232 

57, 163 

324, 329, 438", 605* 
147*, 325, 401, 428 
123, 562 

123, 325 

585 

122, 297, 481 

64, 325 





Luke ii. 28 
Luke ii. 30 
Luke ii. 31 
Luke ii. 33 
Luke ii. 34 
Luke ii. 35 
Luke ii. 36 
Luke ii. 37 
Luke ii. 39 
Luke ii. 41 
Luke ii. 42 
Luke ii. 44 
Luke ii. 45 
Luke ii. 46 
Luke ii. 48 


Luke iii. 1 
Luke iii. 2 
Luke iii. 5 
Luke iii. 7 
Luke iii. 8 


Luke iii. 10 


Luke iii. 11 
Luke iii. 18 
Luke iii. 14 
Luke iii. 15 
Luke iii. 16 
Luke iii. 18 
Luke iii. 19 


Luke iii. 20 


Luke iii. 21 
Luke iii. 22 


Luke iii. 23 


Luke iii. 27 


Luke iii. 29 
Luke iii. 30 
Luke iii. 32 


Luke iii. 87 
Luke iv. 2 
Luke iv. 3 
Luke iv. 6 
Luke iv. 7 
Luke iv. 8 
Luke iv. 9 
Luke iv. 10 
Luke iv. 12 
Luke iv. 14 
Luke iy. 15 
Luke iv. 16 
Luke iv. 18 
Luke iv. 20 
Luke iv. 22 
Luke iv. 23 


150* 

607 

174, 400 
519 

184*, 397 


810, 366, 462* 
41, 138, 149, 604* 


427, 593 
275 


68, 215*, 230, 531 


196 


188*, 226*, 231 
342, 344*, 484 


199 
276, 518 


61, 126, 138*, 219 
41, 60, 122, 375 


591 
270 
614 
279 
482 


105, 240, 404 


232 
299 

261, 412* 
228, 525* 
61, 144 
393 

72, 323 
132, 232 
196, 349* 
60 

52, 66° 
67 

67 

52 

77, 499, 544 
336 

271" 
214, 291 
210 

118 

326 

316 

382 


145, 150, 353* 
177, 211, 217 
48, 223, 272* 


106 
212, 237 


$47, 416*, 529 


Lnke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 


Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke y. 
Luke νυ. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke νυ. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke ν. 
Luke v. 
Luke vy. 
Luke v. 
Luke vy. 
Luke vy. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 


Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke yi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke yi. 
Luke vi. 


N. T. INDEX. 


61, 63, 296, 408* 
187, 508 

375 

71, 118, 329, 374, 603 
378 

348 

232 

234, 626 


50, 128, 227, 344*, 483*, 544 


886, 584 
621 

84, 120, 544 
346, 514 
825, 471, 604 


199, 348, 404, 608 
404, 427 

335, 366* 
897*, 541, 580* 
394* 

325 

549 

163, 544 

209, 211, 348, 571 
122, 198, 545, 608 


146*, 481, 545, 579, 598 


268, 371, 411 
150, 413, 414* 
146*, 147, 150, 436 
207*, 428, 590 
80 

465 

80 

580 

158, 408* 

182 

66 

376 

271* 

85 

430, 523 

150 


100*, 116, 323, 431 
559 
296, 519 
323 
253, 288 
123 
72 
76, 303, 308* 
185, 348 
370, 432* 
86 





Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 


Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 


Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 
Luke vii. 


21 


29 
30 


34 
36 


39 


681 


131, 190 

141, 259 

371* 

268, 330, 515 
148, 396, 607 
84 

121, 268, 558 
87 

229 

501 

592* 

540 

295, 331, 428 
45, 118, 409, 477 
506 

112, 412, 525 
511 

150, 366*, 485 
111, 412, 488 
111, 155 


73, 225, 330, 469*, 603 


483 


275 

338 

76 

150* 

61 

442, 595 
349* 
490, 493 
590 
211*, 296, 438*, 605 
233 


418, 414* 
548 

341, 594 

271 

323 

123, 260 
227 

110, 564* 
213*, 484 
564 

86, 483* 

51, 86, 552 
117, 270, 336 
268, 344, 544 
304*, 541 
169, 240 

582 

110 


682 


Luke vii. 45 
Luke vii. 47 
Luke vii. 50 


Luke viii. 2 

Luke viii. 3 

Luke viii. 5 

Luke viii. 6 

Luke viii. 7 

Luke viii. 8 

Luke viii. 9 

Luke viii. 12 
Luke viii. 13 
Luke viii. 14 
Luke viii. 15 
Luke viii. 16 
Luke viii. 17 
Luke viii. 18 
Luke viii. 19 
Luke viii. 20 
Luke viii. 21 
Luke viii. 22 
Luke viii. 23 
Luke viii. 24 
Luke viii. 25 
Luke viii. 28 
Luke viii. 29 
Luke viii. 30 
Luke viii. 31 
Luke viii. 32 
Luke viii. 34 
Luke viii. 37 
Luke viii. 38 
Luke viii. 39 
Luke viii. 40 
Luke viii. 41 
Luke viii. 43 
Luke viii. 46 
Luke viii. 47 
Luke viii. 48 
Luke viii. 51 
Luke viii. 52 
Luke viii. 53 
Luke viii. 54 


Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 
Luke ix. 9 

Luke ix. 12 


IO oP ὦ 


N. T. INDEX. 


345, 592 
80, 132, 456* 
143, 271 


514 
138, 340, 366 
105, 225, 333, 576 
90, 482 

90, 123 

90, 132, 319 
270, 299 

287 

405* 

369 

524 

376 

300, 307%, 481 
306, 480*, 613* 
70 

‘ 588* 
105 

285, 519 

270 

128, 610 

445 

198, 585 

63, 218* 

514 

336 

811, 634 

4168 

515 

514 

400 

259 

268, 270 

213, 386, 499 
346 

301 

549 

499 

222, 268 

268 

182, 183, 202 


577 
316*, 398, 488, 489 
314 


61, 123 
153* 
251*, 515 





Luke ix. 13 
Luke ix. 14 
Luke ix. 16 
Luke ix. 19 
Luke ix. 20 
Luke ix. 22 
Luke ix. 25 
Luke ix. 26 
Luke ix. 27 
Luke ix. 28 
Luke ix. 31 
Luke ix. 82 
Luke ix. 33 
Luke ix. 34 
Luke ix. 36 
Luke ix. 37 
Luke ix. 39 
Luke ix. 40 
Luke ix. 41 
Luke ix. 42 
Luke ix. 45 
Luke ix. 46 
Luke ix. 47 
Luke ix. 49 
Luke ix. 50 
Luke ix. 51 
Luke ix. 52 
Luke ix. 54 
Luke ix. 57 
Luke ix. 61 
Luke ix. 62 


Luke x. 1 
Luke x. 2 
Luke x. 4 
Luke x. 6 
Luke x. 7 
Luke x. 8 
Luke x. 9 
Luke x. 11 
Luke x. 13 
Luke x. 18 
Luke x. 19 
Luke x. 20 
Luke x. 21 
Luke x. 23 
Luke x. 24 
Luke x. 28 
Luke x. 29 
Luke x. 30 
Luke x. 82 
Luke x. 34 
Luke x. 35 


116, 239, 294%, 516* 


229*, 464 


106, 116, 340, 344, 428 


105*, 138 
549 

83, 371* 

87, 253 

543 

198*, 308, 506 
58, 116, 516*, 563 
70 

83, 340 

66, 319 

431* 

76, 158, 385 
367, 523 

427 

70, 336 

83 

544 

370, 459* 
244, 308, 413 
202, 395 

393* 

168 

150, 608 

318, 594*, 607 
285*, 431, 595 
307 

362, 629 

213, 430 


70, 150, 249, 398, 472*, 527, 


270, 338, 559 
43, 493, 501 
428, 429, 583 
86, 106, 366* 
306, 310, 579* 
407* 

253 

516* 

269 

274*, 499, 507 


232, 387*, 495*, 497 


126, 209 
153 

153*, 330 

436 

130*, 437 

67, 844, 432, 543 
400, 571 

205, 428 

46, 143, 307 


Luke x. 36 
Luke x. 37 
Luke x. 40 
Luke x. 41 
Luke x. 42 


Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 10 
Luke xi. 11 
Luke xi. 12 
Luke xi. 13 
Luke xi. 17 
- Luke xi. 18 
Luke xi. 19 
Luke xi. 20 
Luke xi. 22 
Luke xi. 24 
Luke xi. 28 
Luke xi. 29 
Luke xi. 31 
Luke xi. 33 
Luke xi. 34 
Luke xi. 35 
Luke xi. 36 
Luke xi. 37 
Luke xi. 39 
Luke xi. 42 
Luke xi. 44 
Luke xi. 46 
Luke xi. 48 
Luke xi. 49 
Luke xi. 50 
Luke xi. 51 
Luke xi. 52 
Luke xi. 53 


Ο “ὁ σ᾽ ὧν,» ὦ WY "ῷ 


Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 


᾿ῷ ὦ ὅ᾽ ον» ὦ LD "ὦ 


i 
- © 


N. T. INDEX. 


130*, 396, 430 
376, 456 

85, 336, 406, 432 
610 

246*, 427, 456 


117, 440 

309 

97* 

111 

169, 280*, 286 
367* 

415 

45, 200*, 330, 479 
111 

512, 568: 
295: 

θ29: 

41,178 

445: 

152 

292 

31, 233 

483* 

559 

189* 

67 

238* 

143 

508 

808 

74, 338 

128, 201, 522 
128, 251 

84 

226 

445, 457*, 558 
396, 589 
123, 410, 459 
129 

65, 74 

593* 


363, 


386* 

441*, 481 

364* 

83, 162* 

299, 329, 429 
172*, 510 

57, 144, 296", 455* 
259 

222, 397 

128, 299, 407, 427* 





Luke xii. 


Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 


Luke xii. 


Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 


Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 


683 


133 
376 

228, 409 

223, 367 

71, 78, 602 

57, 472 

155, 472* 

396 

183, 218, 256*, 522*, 588 
397 

94 

478*, 490 

493 

437 

155, 456, 548%, 549 
183 

155 

176, 367* 

607, 608* 

410 

393, 410 

552, 614 

422 

162, 226, 405, 483*, 589* 
164, 229, 522 
143*, 448* 

297 

442* 

392* 

116*, 265 

427, 454, 502 
506* 


376, 623* 

240, 271*, 404*, 508 
385* 

169 

297, 406 

296*, 583, 600* 
250, 424*, 486 
183, 271 

73 

58, 218 

129 

197, 218, 250, 563 
429 

456 

125, 514 

256, 400 

509 

563 

110, 427 

75, 88, 309 


684 


Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 


Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 


Luke xiv. 


Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 


Luke xv. 
Luke xv. 
Luke xv. 
Luke xy. 
Luke xv. 
Luke xv. 
Luke xv. 
Luke xv. 
* Luke xv. 
Luke xv. 
Luke xv. 
Luke xv. 
Luke xv. 
Luke xy. 
Luke xv. 
Luke xv. 
Luke xv. 


Luke xvi 
Luke xvi 


Luke xvi 
Luke xvi 
Luke xvi 


Luke xvi. 


29 
80 


2 
3 
4 
6 
8 
9 


Luke xvi. 10 


N. T. INDEX. 


60 
590 
590 
83, 152, 330, 407 


296, 298*, 456, 506, 508, 528 


218 
128 

143, 202, 521 
169, 632 

268*, 593, 602 
459, 503 

69, 74, 428, 459* 
488, 497 

69 
276*, 423, 545, 591* 
259, 276* 

84 

128, 520 

127 

198, 482 

126, 479 

480 

333 

41, 384 

465 

213*, 488 


426 

297, 407 
128, 256* 
128, 256* 
63, 400* 

632 

198*, 201, 370 
201, 558 

58, 608* 
319, 387, 615 
* 01g 

87 

121, 199 
117, 169, 299 
270, 330, 456 
125*, 230 
155 


76, 148, 521, 602, 614, 628* 


227, 346*, 427 

196, 589 

155, 188 

203*, 237, 238, 240, 598* 
867 

59 
Luke xv. 7 





Luke xvi. 11 
Luke xvi. 12 
Luke xvi. 13 
Luke xvi. 14 
Luke xvi. 16 
Luke xvi. 18 
Luke xvi. 19 
Luke xvi. 20 
Luke xvi. 21 
Luke xvi. 22 
Luke xvi. 28 
Luke xvi. 24 
Luke xvi. 25 
Luke xvi. 26 
Luke xvi. 29 
Luke xvi. 31 


Luke xvii. 1 
Luke xvii. 2 
Luke xvii. 4 
Luke xvii. 6 
Luke xvii. 7 
Luke xvii. 8 

Luke xvii. 10 
Luke xvii. 11 
Luke xvii. 12 
Luke xvii. 15 
Luke xvii. 16 
Luke xvii. 17 
Luke xvii. 18 
Luke xvii. 22 
Luke xvii. 23 
Luke xvii. 24 
Luke xvii. 25 
Luke xvii. 28 
Luke xvii. 31 
Luke xvii. 32 
Luke xvii. 33 
Luke xvii. 34 


Luke xviii. 1 
Luke xviii. 2 
Luke xviii. 3 
Luke xviii. 4 
Luke xviii. 6 
Luke xviii. 7 
” ” ”»> 
Luke xviii. 8 
Luke xviii. 9 
Luke xviii. 10 
Luke xviii. 11 
Luke xviii. 12 
Luke xviii. 13 
241* 


549 

550 

64, 173, 332 
134, 343 
422 

122* 

229 

72, 273* 
201 

176, 323 
176*, 344 
201 

76 

109, 287, 398*, 477, 629 
" 67 

123, 477 


328, 482* 
241*, 337, 432, 632 
82, 203, 233 
304 

74 

88, 89, 168, 297* 
308* 

112, 385 

207 

877 

122 

510 

511*, 616* 
45, 296 

488, 501, 522 
366, 407, 591 
371 

71, 268 

578 

205 

310 

116, 173, 266* 


329* 
116, 221 

621 

444, 479, 595 
237 

207, 212, 393, 494*, 506, 
508, 552 
510* 

109, 301 

173 

58, 183, 440 
203, 274* 
330, 430, 500 


N. T. INDEX. 


Luke xviii. 14 241* 
Luke xviii. 15 108 
Luke xviii. 17 506 
Luke xviii. 18 551 
Luke xviii. 21 253 
Luke xviii. 25 319 
Luke xviii. 27 116 
Luke xviii. 29 482, 519 
Luke xviii. 30 506, 508 
Luke xviii. 31 211* 
Luke xviii. 34 147*, 227 
Luke xviii. 35 67, 404 
‘Luke xviii. 36 299 
Luke xviii. 39 150 
Luke xviii. 40 207 
Luke xix. 1 431 
Luke xix. 2 149, 150, 160* 
Luke xix. 3 70, 268, 371, 626 
Luke xix. 4 207, 288, 429, 590, 603, 632* 
Luke xix. 5 333 
Luke xix. 7 3958 
Luke xix. 8 65 
Luke xix. 11 468 
Luke xix. 13 125 
Luke xix. 14 206 
Luke xix. 15 "152, 275, 628 
Luke xix. 16 72 
Luke xix. 17 79 
Luke xix, 23 303* 
Luke xix. 27 206, 330 
Luke xix. 28 428 
Luke xix. 29 182 
Luke xix. 35 155 
Luke xix. 36 384 
Luke xix. 37 163, 164, 378, 395*, 516, 526 
Luke xix. 39 85 
Luke xix. 40 87, 279* 
Luke xix. 41 222, 408 
Luke xix. 42 125, 197, 227, 438, 599* 
Luke xix. 43 436 
Luke xix. 44 364* 
Luke xix. 46 228 
Luke xix. 47 550 
Luke xix. 48 71, 87, 299, 429 
Luke xx. 2 85, 441, 602 
Luke xx. 4 420, 509 
Luke xx. 7 481 
Luke xx. 9 230 
Luke xx. 10 124, 199 
. Luke xx. 11 468* 
Luke xx, 12 105, 468 





Luke xx. 14 
Luke xx. 16 
Luke xx. 19 
Luke xx. 20 
Luke xx. 22 
Luke xx. 24 
Luke xx. 25 
Luke xx. 26 
Luke xx. 27 
Luke xx. 34 
Luke xx. 35 
Luke xx. 36 
Luke xx. 37 
Luke xx. 40 
Luke xx. 42 
Luke xx. 43 
Luke xx. 46 
Luke xx. 47 


Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 


Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 
Luke xxi. 


3 
4 
Luke xxi. 6 
8 
1 


Luke xxi. 18 


Luke xxi. 


Luke xxi. 21 
Luke xxi. 22 
Luke xxi. 28 
Luke xxi. 24 
Luke xxi, 25 
Luke xxi. 26 
Luke xxi. 28 
Luke xxi. 30 
Luke xxi. 33 
Luke xxi. 34 
Luke xxi. 37 


Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Lnke xxii. 


| Luke xxii. 


Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 


405 

128, 202*, 321 
509 

313, 582 

109 

202, 232 
5895, 604 

92 

133, 200, 609* 
490*, 491 

᾿ 63 
456, 499 

81, 112 

527, 605 

468* 

86 


242 

340 

392, 574* 
504 

439, 637 
84 

481 

589 

364, 506 
274*, 313 
147* 

325 

128 

297, 348* 
65, 120, 121, 552 
371, 420*, 430 
614 

372, 594* 
506 

83, 464 
415 


531 

109, 299 

324 

285 

207 

603 

74, 519 

_ $29, 839, 466* 
297, 499, 506, 508 
199 

116, 153*, 382 
403, 411, 513, 634, 635* 


686 


Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 


Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 


” ” 


Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 


- OOnN OO Pp DH » 


et ee 
orp, WY De 


26 
28 
31 


N. T. INDEX. 


374 
109, 299", 445, 543 
244, 613* 

587* 

129, 169 

86, 289 

325, 610 

89, 336 

319, 420 

507 

43, 201 

43, 582* 

109, 513 

375* 

71, 230*, 427 

76, 432, 600 

431 

371 

432 

62, 279*, 341, 388, 509 
118 

201 

74, 377, 407 

155, 207 

183 

178* 

463 

430, 602 

275 

506 


113, 515, 516 
203, 604 

128 

621* 

113, 298 

67, 428 

367* 

261 

428 

129, 350*, 376, 405, 439, 
467, 518 

113 

180, 203, 431 
219 

121, 430 
183, 222, 408 
218, 285, 550 
530* 

122, 552 

168 

253 





Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 


Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Lake xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 


John i. 1 
John i. 2 
John i. 8 
John i. 4 


39 175 
40 112 
41 169, 582* 
42 205, 413 
44 43, 436* 
45 131* 
46 125 
48 844, 409 
50 524, 528 
51 146*, 348, 421, 563 
53 "499 
56 276 
1 207, 248, 275 
2 362, 364*, 369 
4 174 
5 175, 376 
10 131, 190 
11 238, 514 
13 848, 557 
14 212, 268 
15 112, [50 
16 326 
18 57, 103, 112, 630 
19 523, 552 
20 449 
21 114, 254*, 391*, 444, 559, 625 
23 484 
25 188, 230, 324 
27 268, 370, 420, 633* 
28 472 
29 121, 325, 405* 
30 71 
31 370 
82 268, 348 
35 219, 386 
36 150 
37 350 
39 63, 552* 
41 871 
42 199 
46 123, 231* 
47 213, 398, 396, 624* 
49 297 
50 148, 603, 607* 
51 "428 
52 210 
53 349 
122*, 181, 365, 405, 551 

122, 124 

173, 379*, 610 

114 


John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i, 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 
John i. 


John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 


5 
6 


N. T. INDEX. 


270 
149, 350, 365*, 585 
458* 

114, 816", 317* 
182, 349* 

609 

592* 

134 

177*, 488 

122, 193, 201, 564*, 617*, 630 
222, 244*, 274 
364*, 437* 

879, 639 

160, 341, 413, 415* 
438* 

479, 545, 610 

106, 114, 476 

620 

479*, 488, 491 
217, 261, 412*, 537 
335, 337 

61 

266 

153, 244* 

217, 561 

121, 266, 573 

408, 412*, 573 
273* 

430 

537 

105, 563 

230, 268, 298, 537 
64 

154, 537, 563 

60, 153, 430 

266, 313, 537, 563 
61 

133, 267, 537, 548 
86, 551 

- $29, 841, 372, 537, 551 
ἱ 114 
162, 939 

537, 553 


61, 187, 540 
519, 540 

540 

211, 274, 537, 585 

307 

398*, 401, 402, 523 

201, 313, 537, 539 

313, 314, 537, 540 

85, 198, 268, 274, 343, 540 





John ii. 10 


John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 


John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 


John iv. 
John iv. 


ll 


Here ῷ ὦ Ο᾽ ὧν καὶ ὦ NW = 
»»ΛΑἈ8οὦ 


- κὰκ 
are ὦ 


35 
36 


1 
2 


John iv. 4 


687 


110, 152, 524 
61, 110 

143, 230, 519 

539 

106, 128, 539 

429, 439, 539, 559 

814, 539 

89, 185 

445* 

312, 385*, 537 

71, 218, 250 

531 

123, 163, 627* 

67, 68, 155, 385, 410, 638 
143, 638 

115*, 339 


366, 563, 585 
84, 122, 527 

537 

331, 537 

537, 630 

178, 639 

298, 472, 510, 543 
537 

114, 115*, 537 
437, 517, 561 
235*, 478 

841", 431, 537 
106*, 540 

133, 172*, 281, 301, 610 
537, 540 

272, 273, 474*, 480 
129, 155, 630 

111, 639 

122, 155, 639 

268, 376, 539, 593* 
144, 471, 514 

368 

212* 

499 

79, 199, 466* 

332, 537 

537 

437, 537 

155, 537 

424*, 543 

414 

266* 


144*, 239, 268, 540 
150, 444 
283*, 540 


688 


John iv. 
John iv. 


” ” 


John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iy. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iy. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iy. 
John iy. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iy. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 


6 


21 


25 


52 
53 


John iv. 54 


John v. 


1 


John vy. 2 


John νυ. 


8 


N. T. INDEX. 


113, 396, 444, 471, 540 


134, 367*, 392*, 540, 541, 562, 


618* 

537 

288, 562 

88, 152, 865, 523, 537 
152*, 537, 562 
132, 494*, 524, 537 
239, 519 

199, 397*, 507 
318, 488, 537 

537 

537 

110, 464* 

537, 551 

384 

183, 265, 296, 537 
480, 538 


111, 210, 420*, 424*, 448, 528 


538, 551 
308, 537 

537, 582 

3876, 393*, 539 
396, 444 

114, 511 

86 

268, 545, 592* 
511* 

337*, 338, 537 
313, 539, 589, 626, 641* 
133, 459* 

114, 363 

272 

134, 540, 550 

177, 296, 335, 540 
540, 619 

114, 435, 540, 619* 
106 

447, 454* 

134, 275, 410 

61, 275 

70, 155, 274, 336 
65, 506, 507* 

79, 330* 

163, 537 

207 

230 

422; 519, 582 

604 


118; 125* 
112, 267*, 392*, 5995 
128, 520 





John v. 4 413* 
John v. 5 59, 280", 250, 256* 
John v. 6 537 
John y. 7 372, 386, 537, 599* 
John v. 8 814, 537 
John v. 9 539 
John v. 10 331, 340 
John v. 11 64, 160, 228, 314 
John v. 12 135 
John v. 13 91, 268, 342 
John vy. 14 501 
John vy. 15 64, 268 
John vy. 16 268 
John vy. 18 154, 268 
John y. 19 261, 306, 307, 543 
John v. 20 242, 287 
John v. 21 123, 440, 541 
John v. 22 131, 548* 
John v. 23 475 
John v. 24 273* 
John vy. 25 199, 296 
John v. 26 266 
John v. 27 439* 
John v. 28 82 
John v. 29 188, 354 
John v. 30 495, 496, 499 
John v. 32 109, 225, 513 
John v. 35 114, 405, 614 
John v. 36 133*, 245* 
John v. 37 488, 489 
John v. 38 489* © 
John v. 39 114 
John y. 41 365 
John v. 42 185, 263, 482, 626 
John ν. 43 390, 494, 537 
John v. 44 152, 331*, 464*, 573, 578 
John ν. 45 109, 233, 278*, 537 
John y. 46 363, 66, 304 
John vy. 47 285, 292, 477, 478 
John vi. 1 191*, 207 
John vi. 2 375*, 515 
John vi. 3 106, 428, 456 
John vi. 5 268, 279, 287, 607 
John vi. 6 150, 564 
John vi. 7 335, 337 
John vi. 9 117, 141, 169 


John vi. 10'78,74, 230*, 313,443, 452*,456* 


John vi. 13 132, 201, 208, 514 
John vi. 14 114 
John vi. 15 228, 607 
John vi. 16 275 
John vi. 17 86, 429, 494, 596* 


John vi. 18 
John vi. 19 
John vi. 21 
John vi. 22 
John vi. 23 
John vi. 24 
John vi. 26 
John vi. 27 
John vi. 29 
John vi. 30 
John vi. 31 
John vi. 32 
John vi. 33 
John vi. 35 
John vi. 36 
John vi. 37 
John vi. 38 
John vi. 39 
John vi. 40 
John vi. 41 
John vi. 42 
John vi. 43 
John vi. 45 
John vi. 46 
John vi. 50 
John vi. 51 
John vi. 52 
John vi. 54 
John vi. 55 
John vi. 56 
John vi. 57 
John vi. 58 
John vi. 60 
John vi. 62 
John vi. 63 
John vi. 64 
John vi. 65 
John vi. 66 
John vi. 68 
John vi. 69 
John vi. 70 
John vi. 71 


John vii. 1 
John vii. 2 
John vii. 3 
John vii. 4 
John vii. 6 
John vii. 7 
John vii. 8 
John vii. 10 
John vii. 12 
John vii. 13 


N. T. INDEX. 


"485 
230, 250, 374*, 471 
268, 330, 375*, 467*, 614 
79, 131, 275, 568* 
564* 

57, 268 

496 

496*, 528, 534 

57, 159, 166, 338, 628 
152 

106*, 588* 

276 

343 

77, 506, 639 

439* 

178 

287 

83, 574, 589 

144, 338 

343, 431 

159 

376 

175, 189* 

597 

114, 199, 343, 366, 630 
86, 87, 114, 343, 443 
212 

552 

465* 

552 

399*, 440, 549 

86, 198 

551 

159, 600* 

114, 499, 538, 609 
124, 268, 475*, 543 
368 

867, 550 

279, 549 

553* 

436* 

70, 190 


268 

528 

79 

292, 630* 
132 

614* 
596* 
541, 617 
105 

185* 

87 





John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 
John vii. 


John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 


14 
15 
16 
17 


”» 


18 


23 


689 


270 


340, 483*, 496 


496* 


107, 298, 382, 373, 509, 537, 


442, 


541, 614 

537 
271, 508 
59*, 117 


271, 368, 421, 597 


459*, 508 
224, 314 
511 


298, 442, 510, 626 


437 

437 

58, 163, 511* 
288 

53, 552 


187*, 300*, 472, 511 


53, 494 
77, 298, 525 
89, 550, 574 
_ 163 

107 

447: 

265, 411 
399 

330, 437 
157*, 632 
366, 420 


442, 484, 486*, 515 
267, 523*, 588 
265, 266, 311* 


123 
72 
268 
394, 467 
268 
249, 621 — 
506, 513 
267, 441, 472 
583* 
293, 558 
538 
304, 488 


275, 385*, 480 


387, 388 
9258, 511* 
109 


John viii. 25 46, 167*, 230, 438, 457, 464* 


”? 


John viii 


” 


. 26 


549 
416, 442, 451 


690 


John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John yiii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John yiii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 
John viii. 


John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix, 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix, 
John ix. 
John ix, 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 
John ix. 


27 
29 
33 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
44 
45 


οι ὧν ἱἵ ὧν οὐ oan om 
Φ Οὐ δ᾽ ὧν». ὦ NH = 


φΦφ Ο 2 σ΄ ὧν». wd "νῷ 


_ 
ὦ 


18 


— μὰ μ᾿ μὰ 
coon a 


to to 
μ" © 


22 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
38 
36 
87 
88 


N. T. INDEX. 


222 
277* 

271 

295 

413, 414*, 480 

455* 

305 

199%, 272, 528 

538 

304 

114*, 138, 145*, 308, 467* 
457 

293, 506 

506, 519 

545, 577* 

293, 574*, 626 

195*, 209, 482 

339* 

267, 330, 523 

253*, 469* 


139, 367 
58, 459*, 545 

177, $16, 317*, 488, 514 
296, 297, 332, 481 
144, 609 

427 

413, 415*, 563 
114, 268 

209 

72 

155, 4155, 427, 456 
58, 267, 528 

72, 443 

298 

83, 550 

275, 296 

114 

114 

83, 150, 152, 155, 298 
254, 262, 294, 336 
153 

298*, 341* 

155, 456 

331 

222 

66 

72, 184*, 446* 
160, 199, 549 

70, 305*, 477, 499 
437, 620* 

278, 274*, 540 
105, 210 





John ix. 41 


John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x, 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 


John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x, 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x, 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x, 


John xi, 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi, 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John. xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 


38 
41 


11 
12 
13 
15 
18 
19 
21 


John xi. 25 


804 


488 
154, 587, 540 
514, 537 

84, 223, 507, 610 
168, 298* 

114, 187* 

872, 514 

540 

606 
106*, 132, 524, 539 
514, 540 

206, 373 


382, 440 

520 

537 

370 

399 

456 

833, 514 

112 

67, 385 

437, 514 

514 

83, 506 

143, 144, 242 
152, 518 
265*, 368, 412, 525 
152, 228, 412 
478 

580 

478* 

553 

144 


364*, 370, 411* 

227, 343*, 562 

543 

383*, 405 

268, 443 

159, 165, 230, 541, 576 
603 

436, 472 

608* 

292 

531 

80, 339", 459* 

112, 195, 372, 471, 557* 
275 

304 

87, 114, 518 


John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 


John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 


John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 
John xii. 


N. T. INDEX. 


506 

273 

275, 456, 563* 
341, 626 

155, 159*, 304 
215*, 527 

70, 149, 337 
396*, 430 

313 

76 

396 

229, 278*, 313, 552 
168 


128, 284* 

155, 192, 607* 
118, 1705, 341 
337, 382 

70, 71, 562 

577 

421 

539 

506, 508* 

72, 275, 294, 336 


123, 557* 
268, 593* 

97%, 201}, 525*, 606 
116, 621* 

116, 206, 268 
274* 

150 

123, 515 

254*, 336 

191, 550 

106, 515, 526 
270, 603* 

549 

393, 541 

123, 270 

884, 347, 515 
353, 593* 

331, 370 

261, 339*, 460* 
83 

265 

442 

582*, 586 

334, 522 

86, 291 

70, 226 

261 

296, 538 





John xii. 36 
John xii. 40 
John xii. 41 
John xii. 42 
John xii. 43 
John xii. 44 
John xii. 46 
John xii. 47 
John xii. 48 
John xii. 49 


John xiii. 1 
” 9 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 
John xiii. 12 
John xiii. 14 
John xiii. 16 
John xiii. 17 
John xiii. 18 
John xiii. 22 


μ᾿ COMA AP ODS 


i 
= Oo 


John xiii. 24 © 


John xiii. 25 
John xiii. 27 
John xiii. 28 
John xiii. 29 
John xiii. 31 
John xiii. 32 
John xiii. 33 
John xiii. 34 
John xiii. 35 


John xiv. 1 
John xiv. 3 
John xiv. 7 
John xiv. 9 
John xiv. 11 
John xiv. 15 
Jobn xiv. 16 
John xiv. 17 
John xiv. 19 
John xiv. 21 
John xiv. 22 
John xiv. 23 
John xiv. 24 


i 691 


238 
155, 459, 494, 522*, 588 
457 

444 

241* 

456, 496, 497 

527 

144 

160, 483 

611 


155, 339, 344, 372, 396, 460, 


531, 572, 638 
252* 

272 

176*, 267* 

106, 614* 

549, 88, 265*, 444, 508 
543 

506 

552, 582 

508 

353, 562 

271, 275 

88, 292, 528, 549 
239, 242, 488 

296*, 612 

316, 317*, 430, 620 
233, 268 

308*, 318 

407* 

243*, 265, 311* 
405*, 626 

158*, 313, 559, 577, 580 
277: 

292: 

440 

886, 464", 524*, 550 
173, 386 


817, 501 
265 
273*, 304 
549 


692 


John xiv. 
John xiv. 
John xiv. 
John xiy. 
John xiv. 


John xv. 
John xv. 
John xv. 
John xy. 
John xv. 
John xy. 
John xy. 
John xv. 
John xy. 
John xy. 
John xy. 
John xy. 
John xv. 
John xv. 
John xv. 
John xv. 
John xy. 
John xv. 
John xv. 
John xy. 
John xy. 


26 
27 
28 


N. T INDEX. 


227, 609 

186, 609, 639 
304* 513 

60, 218, 436, 437 
285 


132 


58, 111, 148, 343*, 483, 537,574 


399, 537 


814, 384, 471, 537, 541, 582 


471*, 499*, 537, 578, 582 


141, 277*, 298, 522, 537, 632* 


310, 537 


161, 278*, 337*, 338*, 537 


537, 541 

153*, 537 

137, 537 

537 

338, 587, 539, 595* 
537 

537, 619 

78, 537, 607 

336, 537 

537 

304, 429, 537, 609 
163, 292*, 537 
537 


John xy. 22 77,192*,305*, 373,477, 537,595 


John xv. 
John xv. 
John xv. 
John xv. 
John xy. 


John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 
John xvi. 


23 
24 
25 


537 

ΤΊ, 271, 439, 475, 537 
317*, 588, 620 

141, 365, 429, 562 
267, 443 


265, 339, 451*, 460 
124 

320, 337 

421, 520 

273 


266 
75, 203, 265, 366*, 589 
330 

87, 90, 184 
90, 558 

227, 499 

459, 499 

296, 481 

373 

112, 150*, 365 
122, 339, 387* 





John xvi. 31 
John xvi. 32 
John xvi. 33 


John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 
John xvii. 


John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 


John xviii. 
John xviii. 
John xviii. 


John xviii. 
John xviii. 


John xviii. 


John xviii 
John xviii. 


Ὁ “ὁ σ᾽ οἱ» OW 


"» μ᾿ 
», > 


22 


20 


508 
339, 460, 516* 
291 


75, 79, 145, 185*, 289 
161, 290, 337, 338, 525 
276* 

163 

76 

76 

553 

159, 166, 421 
273*, 889", 389, 562 
163, 183, 265 

"508 

272 

336, 410 

538 

277*, 440 

274*, 582 

585 

123, 265 

439 

225 


67 

113, 376 

106, 368, 377, 471, 472* 
113, 582 

73, 109 

582 

98, 182, 559 
148*, 313, 512* 
275* 

60 

319 

519 

395 

117, 610 

226 

292 

275 

158, 159 

267, 288 

304, 477 

581* 

70, 226 

151, 261 

304 

444, 457, 512* 
152 

339 

582 


John xix. 2 
John xix. 3 
John xix. 4 
John xix. 5 
John xix. 6 
John xix. 7 
John xix. 9 
John xix. 10 
John xix. 11 
John xix. 12 
John xix. 14 
John xix. 16 
_John xix. 19 
John xix, 21 
John xix. 22 
John xix. 23 
John xix. 24 
John xix. 25 
John xix. 26 
John xix. 28 
John xix. 29 
John xix. 30 
John xix. 31 
John xix. 32 
John xix. 35 
John xix. 36 
John xix. 37 
John xix. 38 
John xix. 39 
John xix. 41 


John xx. 1 
John xx. 2 
John xx. 3 
John xx. 4 
John xx. 6 
John xx. 7 
John xx. 9 
John xx. 11 
John xx. 12 
John xx. 18 
John xx. 14 
John xx. 15 
John xx. 16 
John xx. 17 
John xx. 18 
John xx. 19 
” 9 ” 
John xx. 21 
John xx. 22 
John xx. 23 
John xx. 24 
John xx. 25 


226, 430 

77, 182 

631 

564, 631* 

128, 610 

228 

267 

508, 609 

242, 305* 

429 

124, 189* 

456 

374, 376 

501 

271, 521 

111, 176, 562 
257, 285, 373, 502 
60, 131*, 190, 394 
183 

459*, 561 

201 

i 271 
70, 514*, 561, 562, 563 
70, 115, 576 

840 

162 

158 

632 

86 

499, 524 


106, 248, 343*, 366*, 396 
420, 522, 588* 
270, 519 

69, 464, 604* 

267 

376, 415*, 632 
123, 274 

395, 396 

173, 384, 395, 591* 
298 

537 

147*, 537, 632 

537 

201, 428, 537 

537 


128, 159, 176, 234, 248, 267, 


185, 473*, 585 
271, 541, 585 
312 
272, 291, 293 
483 


66 





John xx. 26 
John xx. 27 
John xx. 28 
John xx. 29 
John xx. 30 


John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 
John xxi. 10 
John xxi. 11 
John xxi. 12 
John xxi. 13 
John xxi. 14 
John xxi. 15 
John xxi. 16 
John xxi. 17 
John xxi. 18 
John xxi. 20 
John xxi. 21 
John xxi. 22 
John xxi. 23 
John xxi. 24 
John xxi. 25 


Caoanrwrk OD 


N. T. INDEX. Mc 


τι 


128, 472, 537, 585 
610 

183* 

272* 

525 


191, 374*, 443 
109, 190, 518, 520 
265, 284, 537 

85, 408 

511 

313, 371, 618 

65, 188, 216, 370, 557, 562 
275 

90, 199, 370, 589 
250, 341 

613* 

607* 

123 

85, 190, 549 

313, 604 

545 

253, 257, 268 

407* 

169, 550, 562, 586* 
55, 152, 296, 586 
268 

343, 517 

168, 333*, 482*, 525 


Acts i. 1 183, 244, 256, 549, 559, 575*, 6215 


Acts i. 2 
Acts i. 3 
Acts i. 4 
Acts i. 5 
Acts i. 6 
Acts i. 7 
Acts i. 8 
Acts i. 10. 
Acts i. 11 
Acts i. 12 
Acts i. 13 
Acts i. 14 
Acts i. 15 
Acts i. 16 
Acts i. 17 
Acts i. 18 
Acts i. 19 
Acts i. 20 
Acts i. 21 
Acts i. 22 
Acts i. 24 
Acts i. 25 


164, 275, 542, 543, 556* 
143, 188, 207, 575* 

199, 545, 580 

161*, 216, 412*, 540 
105, 509 

195*, 441* 

125*, 407, 420 

174, 175, 348, 438 

85, 110, 430, 523, 549, 610 
182* 
113, 128, 131, 190, 518, 520 
122, 521 

250, 562, 563 

183, 523 

200* 

88, 206, 514 

112 

286, 435 

160, 407, 444, 624 

164, 621 

85, 152, 158*, 342* 

432, 631 


Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 


Acts ii. 10 


Acts ii. 


Acts ii. 12 
Acts ii. 14 
Acts ii. 17 


Acts ii. 


Acts ii. 19 
Acts ii. 20 
Acts fi. 22 
Acts ii. 23 
Acts it. 24 
Acts ii. 25 
Acts ii. 26 
Acts ii. 27 
Acts ii. 28 
Acts ii. 29 
Acts ti. 30 
Acts ii. 31 
Acts ii. 32 
Acts ii. 33 
Acts ii, 84 
Acts ii. 36 
Acts ii. 87 
Acts ii. 38 
Acts ii. 39 
Acts ii. 40 


Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 


Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 


Ν, T. INDEX. 


408, 433* 


828, 539 

348, 539 
516*, 539 
539, 614 

370, 407 

154, 516, 528 
112, 439 

400, 439 

345, 347 
803", 516 
183, 391, 610 
77, 199, 370 
77, 438 

531 

330, 396 

379, 523 

73, 148 

31 

88, 397* 

71, 425* 

156, 592 

201, 376* 
113, 384, 549, 585 
226, 331, 455*, 608 
482, 592 

110 

214*, 237%, 435, 531, 559 
81, 215 

111* 

435 

893*, 397, 587 
307, 415* 

545 

433 

348 


65, 156, 211*, 8379», 439, 527 


306 
198, 401* 
110* 


408* 518 


171, 227, 325, 354*, 522, 543 


270, 354, 543, 608, 609 
233, 313 

593 

211 

192, 202* 

553 

66, 392, 626 

67, 392, 394, 526 

183, 261, 326*, 610, 617 





Acts iii. 
Acts iii.” 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 


Acts iv. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iy. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iy. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iv. 
Acts iv. 


Acts v. 
Acts v. 
Acts yv. 
Acts v. 
Acts v. 
Acts νυ. 
Acts v. 
Acts νυ. 
Acts νυ. 
Acts v. 
Acts vy. 


bm wo Ὁ Ol Cl Ol dl ll μὰ κα 
Sarre 9 9 Ὁ Ὁ ὦ πὰ δ σ᾽ Καὶ ὦ 


= ONO μι & DO = 


- 


12 


- 
Oo ὧδ 


13 
14 
15 


148, 149, 157*, 400, 575 
126, 523 

123 

133, 144, 378, 394* 
402* 

606 

310*, 462* 

462 

163, 462, 558 

82, 307, 401, 545 
156, 307, 480 

370, 633* 

114, 163, 225 

134*, 329* 


207, 427 

123, 133, 389 

396, 430, 590 

84, 276 
146*, 323, 415, 590 
390, 420, 527, 632* 
185*, 448 

114, 157* 

217*, 454*, 493 
268, 269*, 434, 544, 626 
5985 

284, 331 

393, 396, 466*, 481 
344, 481, 488 

518 

475, 481, 498* 
109, 299, 343* 

48, 196, 239, 531, 596 
128 

152, 404, 552 

439, 518 

45, 431 

78, 407, 435, 550 
384 

306, 403 

120, 230, 562 


62, 171 


253, 57, 62, 90, 199 


212, 343*, 355, 495*, 497, 585 


344, 408 
58, 483, 563 
206, 298 
342, 405 


65, 67, 363, 379, 564*, 607 


564 
564* 
374, 376, 400*, 431, 564* 


Acts v. 16 
Acts v. 17 
Acts v. 19 
Acts v. 20 
Acts vy. 21 
Acts v. 22 
Acts νυ. 23 
Acts v. 24 
Acts v. 26 
Acts v. 28 
Acts v. 29 
Acts vy. 30 
Acts vy. 31 
Acts Υ. 32 
Acts v. 35 
Acts v. 36 
Acts v. 37 
Acts v. 38 
Acts v. 39 
Acts v. 40 
Acts v. 42 


Acts vi. 1 
Acts vi. 2 
Acts vi. 8 
Acts vi. 4 
Acts vi. 5 
Acts vi. 6 
Acts vi. 7 
Acts vi. 8 
Acts vi. 9 
Acts vi. 11 
Acts vi. 18 


Acts vii. 2 
Acts vii. 8 
Acts vii. 4 
Acts vii. 5 
Acts vii. 8 
Acts vii. 9 
Acts vii. 10 
Acts vii. 11 


Acts vii. 12΄ 


Acts vii. 14 
Acts vii. 15 
Acts vii. 16 
Acts vii. 17 
Acts vii. 19 
Acts vii. 20 
Acts vii. 21 
Acts vii. 22 
Acts vii. 24 
Acts vii. 26 


N. T. INDEX. 


516, 526 

520, 608 

176, 380 

237*, 238*, 634 

407* 

251* 

372, 472, 545, 604 
129, 275, 308, 439, 518 
217, 288, 377, 505* 
112, 201, 393, 408, 466, 481 
332, 518, 520, 595* 
874 

2145, 298, 318 

191* 

60, 392, 549, 557*, 610 
170*, 184, 261, 433* 
106, 621 

296*, 427, 519 

122, 296* 

393 

345*, 435 


28, 268, 405 
85, 87 

375 

128 

28, 103, 113, 120, 214, 233 
632 

268, 435 

118 

112, 129*, 420 
67 

128, 382 


330, 341 
429 

829, 413, 415, 422 
276*, 331, 397 

61, 113, 218 

61, 376 

73, 1885, 228, 527 

407 

63, 345, 347 

113, 250, 391* 

519 

70, 90, 163, 190, 206 
163 

157, 326*, 329 

212, 248* 

73, 143, 147, 228%, 528 
227* 

258, 632* 

48, 269, 341, 435 





Acts vii. 27 
Acts vii. 29 
Acts vii. 80 
Acts vii. 82 
Acts vii. 33 
Acts vii. 34 
Acts vii. 85 
Acts vii. 36 
Acts vii. 37 
Acts vii. 38 
Acts vii. 89 
Acts vii. 40 
Acts vii. 41 
Acts vii. 42 
Acts vii. 48 
Acts vii. 44 
Acts vii. 45 
Acts vii. 46 
Acts vii. 47 
Acts vii. 48 
Acts vii. 51 
Acts vii. 53 
Acts vii. 58 
Acts vii. 59 
Acts vii. 60 


Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 16 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 
Acts viii. 25 
Acts viii. 26 
Acts viii. 27 
Acts viii. 28 
Acts viii. 80 


CON rnarh Oh μὰ 


— 
= © 


» — 
om ὦ 


Θὰ ἣν 
wore owwn 


— 
bo 


695 


71, 90, 269 
121, 387* 
106* 

114, 585 
313 

354 
63, 67, 159 
121, 524 
82, 85 
118, 421 
40, 71, 90 
67, 110, 148, 182, 300* 
232 

43, 175, 251, 469", 512* 
75, 210 

66 

71, 90, 174 
71 

71 

554 

215, 440 
228%, 398* 
254 

549 

226 


113, 133, 400, 443 
256, 276, 443 

113, 443, 552 

559 

113, 125, 145 

113, 329, 435 

443, 584 

443 

170*, 443 

114, 370 

218, 329, 334 

113 

348, 435 

259, 271 

71, 122, 373 
850", 430, 499, 562 
122, 269 

46, 158, 287, 307 
286 

211 

198, 800, 370, 445, 542, 622 
158*, 166, 430, 477 
223 
119*, 121, 157*, 400 
818, 341, 375, 593* 
348, 374, 435 

510, 638 


N. T. INDEX. 


696 
Acts viii, 31 295, 803", 304, 335, 435, 447 
Acts viii. 34 420 
Acts viii. 35 71, 607* 
Acts viii. 36 268, 400, 407, 604 
Acts viii. 38 528 
Acts viii. 39 226, 415, 499 
Acts viii. 40 71, 415*, 616*, 621 
Acts ix. 1 204* 
Actsix.2 106, 107, 195, 196, 227, 294, 
Reel 396, 552, 559 
Acts ix. 3 828, 366, 426, 432, 486 
Acts ix. 4 610 
Acts ix. 6 41, 79, 168, 587* 
Acts ix. 7 44, 486 
Acts ix. 8 72, 118 
Acts ix. 9 486*, 488 
Acts ix. 11 182, 313, 454* 
Acts ix. 12 182, 430 
Acts ix. 13 . 871, 549 
Acts ix. 15 587 
Acts ix. 17 106, 287, 430, 562 
Acts ix. 18 427, 439 
Acts ix. 20 268, 626 
Acts ix. 21 114, 161, 270, 275, 288, 340, 
999 354, 457 
Acts ix. 24 207, 435, 552 
Acts ix. 26 268, 484 
Acts ix. 27 46, 202, 301 
Acts ix. 31 185, 219, 382, 420 
Acts ix. 32 61, 323 
Acts ix. 33 367 
Acts ix. 34 79, 594* 
Acts ix. 35 61, 275 
Acts ix. 37 178*, 323 
Acts ix. 38 61, 471 
Acts ix. 39 258, 254, 376 
Acts ix. 40 105, 345 
Acts ix, 42 213*, 382 
Acts ix. 48 323 
Acts x. 1 61, 62, 171 
Acts x. 8 230 
Acts x. 4 632 
Acts x. 5 313, 396 
Acts x. 6 121, 211, 395, 404 
Acts x. 7 145, 632* 
Acts x. 9 124, 407, 544 
Acts x. 10 146, 147, 330, 408, 430 
Acts x. 11 267, 376*, 635 
Acts x. 13 586 
Acts x. 14 171, 441, 475, 499 
Acts x. 15 152, 543, 586, 604 





Acts x. 16 
Acts x. 17 
Acts x. 18 
Acts x. 20 
Acts x. 21 
Acts x. 22 
Acts x. 23 
Acts x. 24 
Acts x. 25 
Acts x. 26 
Acts x. 28 
Acts x. 30 
Acts x. 32 
Acts x. 38 
Acts x. 35 
Acts x. 36 
Acts x. 37 
Acts x. 38 
Acts x. 39 
Acts x. 41 
Acts x. 42 
Acts x. 45 
Acts x. 47 
Acts x. 48 


Acts xi. 1 

Acts xi. 5 

Acts xi. 6 

Acts xi. 8 

Acts xi. 10 
Acts xi. 11 
Acts xi. 13 
Acts xi. 14 
Acts xi. 15 
Acts xi. 16 
Acts xi. 17 
Acts xi. 19 
Acts xi. 20 
Acts xi. 21 
Acts xi. 22 
Acts xi. 23 
Acts xi. 24 
Acts xi. 26 
Acts xi. 28 
Acts xi. 29 
Acts xi. 30 


Acts xii. 1 
Acts xii. 2 
Acts xii. 3 
Acts xii. 5 
Acts xii. 6 
Acts xii. 7 


422 

268, 308, 371*, 408, 438, 605 
268, 298, 543 

41, 442, 451, 477 

584 

61, 138, 199, 322*, 434 
253* 

348 

328* 

153 

435, 437, 449*, 481 
43, 80 

121, 138*, 404, 528 
345, 592 

120, 574 

149, 164, 564*, 574* 
382, 564* 

227 

163, 363, 439, 559, 560, 625* 
123, 140, 171 

50, 552 

424 

$26, 511 

435 


841, 400 

42, 80, 635* 

270 

441 

422 

408, 427 

106, 435 

152, 518 

124, 614* 

205, 216, 412*, 602 
80, 443, 603, 628* 
371, 372*, 392} 
268 

435 

133, 609* 

335, 433 

524 

95, 323 

63, 75, 89, 334, 375*, 526 
71, 516 

606 


113, 138, 540 

62, 216, 540 

268, 468*, 540, 562, 563 
540 

64, 177, 435, 539, 540 
73, 79, 429, 539, 540 


Acts xii. 8 

Acts xii. 9 

Acts xii. 10 
Acts xii. 11 
Acts xii. 12 
Acts xii. 13 
Acts xii. 14 
Acts xii. 15 
Acts xii. 16 
- Acts xii. 17 
Acts xii. 18 
Acts xii. 19 
Acts xii. 20 
Acts xii. 21 
Acts xii. 22 
Acts xii. 23 
Acts xii. 24 
Acts xii. 25 


Acts xiii. 1 

Acts xiii. 2 

Acts xiii. 3 

Acts xiii. 4 

Acts xiii. 8 

Acts xiii. 9 

Acts xiii. 10 
Acts xiii. 11 
Acts xiii. 12 
Acts xiii. 13 
Acts xiii. 15 
Acts xiii. 16 
Acts xiii. 17 
Acts xiii. 19 
Acts xiii. 20 
Acts xiii. 21 
Acts xiii. 22 
Acts xiii. 23 
Acts xiii. 24 
Acts xiii. 25 
Acts xiii. 26 
Acts xiii. 27 
Acts xiii. 28 
Acts xiii. 29 
Acts xiii. 30 
Acts xiii. 31 
Acts xiii. 32 
Acts xiii. 34 
Acts xiii. 35 
Acts xiii. 36 
Acts xiii. 37 
Acts xiii. 39 
Acts xiii. 40 
Acts xiii. 41 


N. T. INDEX. 


814, 435, 539, 540 
442, 539, 540 

72, 126, 132, 464, 540 
73, 152, 540 

435, 539, 540 

540, 545 

50, 371, 442, 540 

540 

845, 467*, 540, 544 
539, 540 

45, 298, 301, 445, 540 
396, 415*, 437, 540 
871, 375, 410, 540 
142*, 146, 218, 540 
142, 540 

540 

589, 540 

518, 589, 544 


400, 520 

262*, 313, 422 
143, 521, 584* 
539 

138, 561, 562, 563 
107* 


124, 183, 315, 345, 510*, 549 


251, 268, 486, 585 
232 

109, 187, 372, 406* 
183, 218 

183, 610 

377 

121 

218, 250 

230 

113, 181, 180, 190, 228, 527 
192* 238 

607 

169*, 319, 543 
237%, 238% 

454* 

484 

454 

123 

405, 408, 543 
223, 227, 454, 626 
618* 

592* 

432, 540 

158, 543 

57, 422 

175, 430, 504 

293, 508 





Acts xiii. 43 
Acts xiii. 44 
Acts xiii. 45 
Acts xiii. 46 
Acts xiii. 47 
Acts xiii. 48 
Acts xiii. 49 
Acts xiii. 50 
Acts xiii. 51 


Acts xiv. 1 
Acts xiv. 3 
Acts xiv. 4 
Acts xiv. 5 
Acts xiv. 8 
Acts xiv. 9 
Acts xiv. 10 
Acts xiv. 11 
Acts xiv. 12 
Acts xiv. 13 
Acts xiv. 14 
Acts xiv. 15 
Acts xiv. 16 
Acts xiv. 17 
Acts xiv. 18 
Acts xiv. 19 
Acts xiv. 20 
Acts xiv. 21 
Acts xiv. 22 
Acts xiv. 23 
Acts xiv. 26 
Acts xiv. 27 


Acts xv. 1 
Acts xv. 2 
Acts xv. 3 
Acts xv. 4 
Acts xv. 5 
Acts xv. 6 
Acts xv. 7 
Acts xv. 8 
Acts xv. 10 
Acts xv. 12 
Acts xv. 13 
Acts xv. 16 
Acts xv. 17 
Acts xv. 19 
Acts xv. 20 
Acts xv. 21 
Acts xv. 22 
Acts xv. 23 
Acts xv. 24 
Acts xv. 25 


697 


128, 542 

435 

355* 

151, 518, 539 
228, 259, 528 
69, 262*, 543 
378* 

126, 539 

342 


301, 323, 401*, 559 
379 

104, 391 

319, 560 

73, 215 

324, 543 

48, 82, 108, 464, 528, 553* 
431, 539 

66, 150*, 539 

90, 372, 630 

257, 344, 518 
209, 543, 552, 628 
219 

78, 156, 201, 444* 
325 

821, 344, 544 

391 

223, 420, 539 
430 

73 

472 

376, 542 


215, 293 

373 

431 

127, 259, 420, 435, 539 
301, 370 

128, 539 

226*, 606 

440 

152, 318* 488, 542 
177, 379, 515 

183, 329 

469* 

141, 310 

481 

127, 326*, 427, 520 
401* 

255*, 567, 627 

128, 133, 316, 588, 606 
$22, 344, 545 

320, 545, 627 


698 


Acts xv. 26 
Acts xy. 27 
Acts xv. 29 
Acts xy. 31 
Acts xv. 36 
Acts xv. 37 
Acts xv. 38 
Acts xy. 39 


Acts xvi. 2 
Acts xvi. 3 
Acts xvi. 4 
Acts xvi. 5 
Acts xvi. 7 
' Acts xvi. 9 
Acts xvi. 10 
Acts xvi. 11 


Acts xvi. 18 
Acts xvi. 
Acts xvi. 15 
Acts xvi. 16 
Acts xvi. 18 
Acts xvi. 19 
Acts xvi. 21 
Acts xvi. 22 
Acts xvi. 23 
Acts xvi. 24 
Acts xvi. 25 
Acts xvi. 26 
Acts xvi. 27 
Acts xvi. 28 
Acts xvi. 29 
Acts xvi. 31 
Acts xvi. 33 
Acts xvi. 34 
Acts xvi. 37 
Acts xvi. 39 
Acts xvi. 40 


Acts xvii. 2 
Acts xvii. 3 
Acts xvii. 4 
Acts xvii. 6 
Acts xvii. 9 
Acts xvii. 10 
Acts xvii. 11 
Acts xvii. 12 
Acts xvii. 13 
Acts xvii. 14 
Acts xvii. 15 
Acts xvii. 16 
Acts xvii. 18 


N. T. INDEX. 


545 
342* 

315, 345, 427, 520 
232 
142*, 298, 626, 627* 
70 

372*, 481, 482 

435 


260, 420 
607, 626 

268, 296, 431 

215 

333, 400, 476*, 494 
112, 219*, 313, 380 
262* 

590 


408 
433, 543 

292, 314, 545 
257*, 828, 543 
553 

202 

332, 493 

269%, 332 

539 

69, 111, 542, 622 
401*, 518 

63, 72, 176, 549 
70, 334*, 544 
222, 226, 501 
433 


76, 518 


197, 372* 

44, 346, 435, 539, 627 
41, 73, 446*, 591 

335 

396 


209, 211, 215, 217, 372*, 584* 
330, 580 

262 

61, 73, 219, 484 

420 

112, 129, 543 

299*, 377 

523 

82, 112 

129, 617* 

112, 420 

112, 632 

71, 105, 171, 808", 593* 





Acts xvii. 20 
Acts xvii. 21 
Acts xvii. 22 
Acts xvii. 24 
Acts xvii. 25 
Acts xvii. 26 
Acts xvii. 27 
Acts xvii. 28 

ΕΣ 7 3) 
Acts xvii. 29 
Acts xvii. 30 
Acts xvii. 31 
Acts xvii. 32 


Acts xviii. 
Acts xviii. 
Acts xviii. 
Acts xviii. 
Acts xviii. 
Acts xviii. 
Acts xviii. 7 

Acts xviii. 8 

Acts xviii. 9 

Acts xviii. 10 
Acts xviii. 11 
Acts xviii. 12 
Acts xviii. 13 
Acts xviii. 14 
Acts xviii. 15 
Acts xviii. 17 
Acts xviii. 18 
Acts xviii. 19 
Acts xviii. 20 
Acts xviii. 21 
Acts xviii. 22 
Acts xviii. 24 
Acts xviii. 25 
Acts xviii. 26 
Acts xviii. 27 
Acts xviii. 28 


aur OD - 


Acts xix. 1 
Acts xix. 2 
Acts xix. 3 
Acts xix. 4 
Acts xix. 6 
Acts xix. 10 
Acts xix. 11 
Acts xix. 12 
Acts xix. 18 
Acts xix. 14 
Acts xix. 16 
Acts xix. 17 


169 

71, 244%, 549 

244*, 523, 610 
120, 545 

200, 637 

407, 539 

76, 299*, 485 


104, 154, 389, 400*, 454* 


540, 640* 
441, 491* 
488 


163, 389*, 410, 424, 463 


82, 104, 128, 528 


~ 112 


120, 182, 215, 329, 348, 548 


539, 


72, 230, 395 
539, 552 
129, 341, 518 
176*, 587 
182 

113 

610 

593* 

249 

206 

404 


72, 188, 304, 401 


154 

113, 202, 205 
253 

150, 209 

242 

415, 608 
544 

62, 120, 341 
268 

248, 539, 614* 

259 

209 


62, 219, 323, 543 
298, 451, 493, 509 


397*, 439, 539 
680, 550, 576 
71, 539 

408, 552 

140, 539, 606 
428, 435 

226, 408 

60, 170 

132, 429, 431 
140 


Acts xix. 19 
Acts xix. 22 
Acts xix. 24 
Acts xix. 25 
Acts xix. 26 
Acts xix. 27 
Acts xix. 28 
Acts xix. 29 
Acts xix. 31 
Acts xix. 32 
Acts xix. 33 
Acts xix. 34 
Acts xix. 35 
Acts xix. 37 
Acts xix. 38 
Acts xix. 39 
Acts xix. 40 


Acts xx. 1 

Acts xx. 2 

Acts xx. 8 

Acts xx. 4 

Acts xx. 7 

Acts xx. 9 

Acts xx. 10 
Acts xx. 11 
Acts xx. 12 
Acts xx. 13 
Acts xx. 14 
Acts xx. 15 
Acts xx. 16 
Acts xx. 17 
Acts xx. 18 
Acts xx. 20 
Acts xx. 21 
Acts xx. 22 
Acts xx. 23 
Acts xx. 24 
Acts xx. 25 
Acts xx. 26 
Acts xx. 27 
Acts xx. 28 
Acts xx. 29 
Acts xx. 30 
Acts xx. 31 
Acts xx. 32 
Acts xx. 33 
Acts xx. 34 
Acts xx. 35 
Acts xx. 38 


Acts xxi. 1 
Acts xxi. 2 


N. T. INDEX. 


527, 592 

251*, 415* 

253, 257, 341 

367, 406, 543 

110, 321, 498* 

44, 184*, 196, 228, 550 
584 

201, 353* 

61, 171, 335, 481 
242 

209, 330, 332 
567*, 584 


594, 


234, 300, 447, 481, 523, 592 


222 
53, 590* 

292 
203, 448 


543, 609* 
145 


112, 211, 324, 428, 539, 567 


103, 138*, 519, 520, 593 
248, 435, 539 

341, 371, 375*, 431, 545 
430 

541 

276 

262* 

415* 

112, 590 

211, 294, 319, 477 
112 
298%, 422, 430, 549 
325, 545 

66, 559 

215, 483 

63, 340, 508 

186, 318 

384 

197 

$25, 482, 604 

228, 527 

205, 396, 484* 

621 

552 

391* 

204 

577 

240 

163 


62, 323, 427, 590 
842", 344 





699 


Acts xxi. 8 112, 260*, 270, 349*, 472 
Acts xxi. 4 322*, 481, 543 
Acts xxi. 5 122, 323, 552 
Acts xxi. 6 430 
Acts xxi. 8 134*, 592* 
Acts xxi. 9 523 
Acts xxi. 11 155, 552 
Acts xxi. 12 325, 439 
Acts xxi. 13 832, 609* 
Acts xxi. 16 165, 203, 214*, $41, 513, 589* 
Acts xxi. 17 207, 465 
Acts xxi. 18 435 
Acts xxi. 19 158 
Acts xxi. 21 219, 322* 
Acts xxi. 23 211 
Acts xxi. 24 75, 255 
Acts xxi. 25 128, 223, 520 
Acts xxi. 26 218, 255, 275, 296 
Acts xxi. 28 114, 272, 844", 439, 578* 
Acts xxi, 29 821 
Acts xxi. 30 86 
Acts xxi. 31 62, 215* 
Acts xxi. 32 61 
Acts xxi. 33 168, 299*, 308 
Acts xxi. 34 484 
Acts xxi. 35 323 
Acts xxi. 36 516, 526 
Acts xxi. 37 509 
Acts xxi. 38 106, 114, 134, 511* 
Acts xxi. 39 313, 528, 545 
Acts xxii. 2 432 
Acts xxii. 3 187, 189*, 340*, 559* 
Acts xxii. 4 548 
Acts xxii. 5 141, 472 
Acts xxii. 6 121, 220, 323, 406*, 432 
Acts xxii. 7 73 
Acts xxii. 9 540, 550 
Acts xxii. 10 168 
Acts xxii. 11 268, 371*, 481 
Acts xxii. 12 528 
Acts xxii. 13 54, 218, 313, 428 
Acts xxii. 15 110, 158 
Acts xxii. 17 220*, 323*, 577 
Acts xxii. 18 1375 
Acts xxii. 19 213*, 401 
Acts xxii. 21 396 
Acts xxii. 22 282* 
Acts xxii. 24 85, 301 
Acts xxii. 25 61, 208, 509 
Acts xxii. 26 61 
Acts xxii. 28 439 
Acts xxii. 29 443 


700 
Acts xxii. 30 


Acts xxiii. 1 
Acts xxiii. 3 
Acts xxiii. 5 
Acts xxiii. 6 
Acts xxiii. 7 
Acts xxiii. 8 
Acts xxiii. 9 
Acts xxiii. 10 
Acts xxiii. 11 
Acts xxiii. 12 
Acts xxiii. 13 
Acts xxiii. 
Acts xxiii. 15 
Acts xxiii. 19 
Acts xxiii. 20 
Acts xxiii. 21 
Acts xxiii. 22 
Acts xxiii. 28 
Acts xxiii. 24 
Acts xxiii. 26 
Acts xxiii. 27 
Acts xxiii. 29 
Acts xxiii. 30 
Acts xxiii. 34 
Acts, xxiii. 35 


Acts xxiv. 1 
Acts xxiv. 2 
Acts xxiv. 3 
Acts xxiv. 4 
Acts xxiv. 5 
Acts xxiv. 6 
Acts xxiv. 7 
Acts xxiv. 8 
Acts xxiv. 9 
Acts xxiv. 10 
Acts xxiv. 11 
Acts xxiv. 12 
Acts xxiv. 13 
Acts xxiv. 14 
Acts xxiv. 15 
Acts xxiv. 17 
Acts xxiv. 19 
Acts xxiv. 20 
Acts xxiv. 21 
Acts xxiv. 22 
Acts xxiv. 23 
Acts xxiv. 25 
Acts xxiv. 26 


Acts xxv. 1 


N. T. INDEX. 


109, 261, 365*, 398* 


111, 262 

81, 332, 340 

222, 316, 502, 641* 
195, 203, 437, 631 
128 

481, 493*, 540 
519, 599, 600* 
504, 545, 600 

621 

297 

239, 256, 596 


14 44, 128, 150, 297, 466*, 543 


287, 313, 324, 329 
202 

301 
193*, 297, 371, 596 
54, 545, 579 

61, 170*, 313*, 579 
138, 579, 621 

588 

134*, 544 

203 

278, 315, 375, 568* 
364, 366, 411, 582 
808, 332, 558 


534 

614* 

47, 200, 637 

561 

133, 208, 351, 567* 
351*, 543, 567* 

217 

76, 365, 543 

614 

346, 367 

239, 318, 341, 592, 596 
441, 491 

203, 491 

161, 219 

334 
550, 213, 342, 880", 453 
54, 282, 294* 

77, 85, 375 

123, 164, 203 

560* 

61 

884, 342, 463 

209 


869", 540, 544 





Acts xxv. 2 
Acts xxv. 3 
Acts xxv. 4 
Acts xxv. 5 
Acts xxv. 6 
Acts xxv. 7 
Acts xxv. 9 
Acts xxv. 10 
Acts xxv. 11 
Acts xxv. 12 
Acts xxv. 18 
Acts xxv. 14 
Acts xxv. 15 
Acts xxy. 16 
Acts xxv. 17 
Acts xxv. 18 
Acts xxv. 20 
Acts xxv. 21 
Acts xxv. 22 
Acts xxv. 28 
Acts xxv. 24 
Acts xxv. 26 
Acts xxv. 27 


Acts xxvi. 1 
Acts xxvi. 2 
Acts xxvi. 8 
Acts xxvi. 4 
Acts xxvi. 5 
Acts xxvi 6 
Acts xxvi. 7 
Acts xxvi. 8 
Acts xxvi. 9 
Acts xxvi. 10 
Acts xxvi. 11 
Acts xxvi. 12 
Acts xxvi. 13 
Acts xxvi. 14 
Acts xxvi. 15 
Acts xxvi. 16 
3) 2) ” 
Acts xxvi. 17 
Acts xxvi. 18 
Acts xxvi. 19 
Acts xxvi. 20 
Acts xxvi. 22 
” ” ” 
Acts xxvi. 23 
Acts xxvi. 24 
Acts xxvi. 25 
Acts xxvi. 26 
Acts xxvi. 27 


539, 540 

338, 341 

540 

77, 540, 558 

239, 344, 540, 544, 596 
880, 373, 432, 525*, 540 
375 

227, 249% 

208, 253, 267*, 456, 540 
262*, 538 

138, 342, 518, 544 
401, 527 

128, 373, 543 

122, 297, 300 

256, 475 

168, 373* 

299, 397, 543 

143, 332 

82, 283*, 558, 587 

60, 402, 420, 560 

363, 499, 515, 516, 549 
288* 

89, 319 


229, 268 

321 

154, 231*, 400, 559, 572 
124, 133, 136, 576 

401, 527, 626 

394, 397 

100, 331,543,549, 552, 593 
395*, 542 

138 

107, 545 

268, 545 

133, 386, 545 

403, 545 

396, 545 

85 

142, 158, 161, 166, 262* 
439, 442, 548, 545 

141, 429, 545, 550 
1395, 325, 421, 545 

68, 549 

352, 420, 435, 627 

133, 140, 158, 455*, 485, 
550, 559 

97*, 123 

108, 132, 514, 549, 550 
40, 558 

500* 

549 


Acts xxvi. 29 209, 212,235, 303*, 420*, 440 


Acts xxvi. 30 
Acts xxvi. 31 
Acts xxvi. 32 


Acts xxvii. 1 

Acts xxvii. 2 

Acts xxvii. 3 

Acts xxvii. 5 

Acts xxvii. 6 

Acts xxvii. 7 

Acts xxvii. 8 

Acts xxvii. 9 

Acts xxvii. 10 
Acts xxvii. 12 
Acts xxvii. 13 
Acts xxvii. 14 
Acts xxvii. 17 
Acts xxvii. 18 
Acts xxvii. 20 
Acts xxvii. 21 
Acts xxvii. 22 
Acts xxvii. 23 
Acts xxvii. 25 
Acts xxvii. 27 
Acts xxvii. 28 
Acts xxvii. 29 
Acts xxvii. 30 
Acts xxvii. 31 
Acts xxvii. 33 
Acts xxvii. 34 
Acts xxvii. 35 
Acts xxvii. 36 
Acts xxvii. 37 
Acts xxvii. 38 
Acts xxvii. 39 
Acts xxvii. 40 
Acts xxvii. 42 
Acts xxvii. 43 
Acts xxvii. 44 


Acts xxviii. 2 
Acts xxviii. 3 
Acts xxviii. 4 
Acts xxviii. 6 
Acts xxviii. 8 
Acts xxviii. 9 
Acts xxviii. 1 
Acts xxviii. 13 
Acts xxviii. 14 
Acts xxviii. 16 
Acts xxviii. 17 
Acts xxviii. 18 
Acts xxviii. 20 


N. T. INDEX. 


126, 128, 519 
267* 
70, 305, 334, 477 


62, 78, 182, 261, 326*, 540 


224*, 400, 430 

200, 321*, 539 

133, 187, 431* 

525 

484 

471, 539 

63, 334, 543 

334, 339*, 573 

242, 299, 400, 405, 545 
243*, 334*, 594* 
147, 251*, 381*, 558 
209, 210, 504 

256 

120, 484, 488, 610 
87, 183, 282, 443, 481 
223, 508, 633* 

218, 543 

183 

123 

252* 

71, 366, 504, 539 

62 

61 

44, 70, 198, 335, 348 
364, 374* 

71, 614* 

198 

80, 250 

106, 201 

294, 557* 

64, 591, 594 

336, 502*, 545 

196, 251%, 528 

105, 323, 528 


420, 539 
257*, 368*, 371 
366 

268, 396*, 416 
323 

456 

216 

465, 528 

392 

62, 73 

127, 129, 323, 485 
70, 482 

229 





Acts xxviii. 21 
Acts xxviii. 23 
” 2”? ” 
Acts xxviii, 2 
Acts xxviii. 25 
Acts xxviii. 26 
Acts xxviii, 27 
Acts xxviii. 28 


Rom. i. 1 
Rom. i. 2 
Rom. i. 3 
Rom. i. 4 
Rom. i. 5 
”? 29 9? 
Rom. i. 6 
Rom. i. 
Rom. i. 8 
Rom. i. 9 
Rom. i. 10 
Rom. i. 11 
Rom. i. 12 
Rom. i. 18 
Rom. i. 14 
Rom. i. 15 
Rom. i. 16 
Rom. i. 17 
Rom. i, 19 
Rom. i. 
Rom. i. 21 
Rom. i. 22 
Rom. i. 23 
Rom. i. 24 
Rom. i. 25 
Rom. i. 26 
Rom. i. 27 
Rom. i. 28 
Rom. i. 29 
Rom. i. 30 
Rom. i. 31 
Rom. i. 32 
Rom. ii. 1 
Rom. ii. 2 
Rom. ii. 3 
Rom. ii. 4 
Rom. ii. 5 
Rom. ii. 7 
Rom. ii. 8 
Rom, ii. 9 
Rom. ii. 10 
Rom. ii. 11 
Rom. ii. 12 


701 


85, 489 

121, 372, 420, 422, 439, 
543, 559 

104 

61, 602 

51, 85 

494, 503 

82 


125, 545, 565 
543, 545, 565 
186, 545, 565 


123, 188*, 237, 367*, 545, 565 
120, 186, 379*, 383, 384, 402, 


517, 543, 545, 565, 631 
195*, 517, 543, 545, 565 


7 124,139, 219, 234, 545,565, 585 


378, 383, 575, 576* 
386, 410 

300, 376* 

198* 

155, 577 

438, 440, 561, 562, 565 
209, 439 

223, 230, 235 

221, 247%, 576* 


59, 136*, 186*, 396, 419, 513 


235* 


20 128,125, 128, 216, 235*, 439, 688 


71, 582, 624* 
321, 627 
206, 388*, 524 


213, 263*, 326*, 387, 417* 


404* 

237, 404, 571* 

417, 571* 

480, 485, 638 

120, 217, 520, 553, 637 
53* 

553, 637 

123, 206, 344* 


135, 183, 387*, 533 
401 

152, 161*, 183, 509 
190, 235, 353 

125, 188*, 402, 417* 
187*, 519, 639 

424, 578 
156*, 552, 576*, 578 
578 

395, 447 

128, 378, 886", 447 


702 


N. T. INDEX. 


. ἢ. 18 186*, 447, 565: 
. ii. 14. 1895, 141, 211, 309, 447, 483 

Bhi 556*, 565*, 620 
. ἢ. 15 440, 565*, 580*, 615 
ἢ. 17 76, 122, 233, 569*, 610 
. ii. 18 263, 569*, 594 
. ii. 19 321, 520, 569* 
. ii. 20 569% 
. ii. 21 322*, 481, 508, 569* 
. ii, 22 481 

ii. 23 123, 233, 569 
. ii, 25 293 
. ii. 26 145, 228, 259, 293 
. ii, 27 134*, 343*, 380*, 454* 
. ii, 28 421, 454*, 488, 584* 
. ii. 29 116 
. iii 1 174, 584 
. iii, 2 229, 260*, 454*, 514, 575, 576 
. iii. 8 585, 638 
. iii. 4 254, 310, 442 
iii. 5 = 594, 129, 402, 511, 563 
iii. 6 279, 480, 500 
. iii. 7 580 
. ii. 8 287, 580, 628* 


iii. 9 59, 60, 120, 258*, 264*, 407, 

ass 548, 552, '554*, 585 
. iii, 10 178 
. iii, 11 81, 109 
. iii, 13 77, 407* 
. iii, 18 185 
«ἀπ. 19 110, 460 
. iii. 20 171, 186, 280* 
. iii. 21 186*, 271 
. iii, 22 186, 418*, 443 
. iii, 23 201, 274, 352, 353 
. dil, 24 216, 217*, 352* 
. iii, 25 96*, 137, 152*,228, 254, 378, 

Bee 399, 412, 527 
. iii. 26 368, 412 
. iii, 27 116, 582 
. iii, 28 120, 456, 595* 
. iii, 29 192* 
. lii. 80. 116,186, 280*, 362*, 411*, 448 
. iii. 31 78, 87, 128, 609 

iv. 1 113, 334, 508 

iv. 2 306* 

iv. 3 458", 523* 
. ἦν. 4 85, 108, 402* 

ἦν. 5 186, 483 

ἦν. 7 81 


wo * * 506, 585 





Rom. iv. 9 129, 321, 409, 420, 587*, 595* 
Rom. iv. 10 386, 420 
Rom. iv. 11 133, 190, 380, 531 
Rom. iv. 12 209, 211, 219, 534, 555*, 577 
Rom. iy. 13 123, 186*, 320, 441, 447, 


» 99 »» 453*, 586 
Rom. iv. 14 59, 109, 123, 273, 292, 368, 

orga b hae 447, 585, 595 
Rom. iv. 15 123, 447, 456 
Rom. iv. 16 69, 368, 585, 598* 
Rom. iv. 17 164, 165* 
Rom. iv. 18 829, 404, 411, 465 
Rom. iy. 19 50, 486* 
Rom. iv. 20 215*, 216, 261, 342, 344, 397 
Rom. iy. 21 262 
Rom. iv. 22 523* 
Rom. iv. 24 123, 628 
Rom. iv. 25 611, 639 
Rom. v. 1 186*, 378, 406 
Rom. v. 2 583, 136*, 233, 271, 379 
Rom. v. 3 233, 583* 
Rom. v. 5 453,107,185, 378, 413, 414, 417 
Rom. v.6 124, 382, 388, 447, 453*, 553 
Rom. v. 7 117*, 279*, 447, 453*, 613 
Rom. v. 8 137, 383, 553 
Rom. v. 9 197, 594 
Rom. v. 10 262 
Rom. v. 11 351*, 583* 
Rom. v.12 144, 158*, 394, 396, 562, 569* 

”» 9» 599, 609 
Rom. y. 13 85, 123, 475, 570 
Rom. v. 14 82,206,394*, 409,442, 542,570 
Rom. v. 15 - 110, 442, 541, 570* 
Rom. v.16 60, 82, 340*, 368, 396, 584* 
Rom. v. 17 3538 
Rom. v.18 188, 440, 445, 558, 570*, 5874 
Rom. vy. 19 110, 421, 587, 638 
Rom. v. 20 123, 459 
Rom. y. 21 897, 418*, 440 
Rom. vi. 1 279, 285 
Rom. vi.2 86, 168, 210, 279*, 386, 428 
Rom. vi. 8 136, 509 
Rom. vi. 4 136, 137, 236, 288, 444 
Rom. vi. 5 292, 442*, 451 
Rom. vi. 6 161, 188*, 326, 612*, 615 
Rom. vi. 8 49, 86, 391 
Rom. vi. 9 538 
Rom. vi. 10 168*, 210, 227, 422, 428 
Rom. vi, 11 210*, 228, 389* 
Rom. vi. 12 488, 502, 524* 
Rom. vi. 13 314, 488 


N. T. INDEX. 


Rom. vi. 14 120, 279*, 316* 
Rom. vi. 15 82, 279, 420, 585 
Rom. vi. 16 158, 266, 440, 612* 
Rom. vi,17 1645, 261*, 368, 585, 629* 
Rom. vi. 18 197, 210 
Rom. vi. 19 128, 210 397 
Rom. vi. 20 210* 
Rom. vi. 21 60, 141, 158*, 221 
Rom, vi. 22 197, 417* 
Rom. vi. 23 176, 389 
Rom. vii. 1 128, 446, 562, 565, 589 
Rom. vii. 2 188*, 209, 271*, 293, 446, 621 
Rom. vii. 3 280, 324, 343, 445, 558 
Rom. vii. 4 118, 210*, 301, 381* 
Rom. vii. 5 133, 189, 258, 329 
Rom. vii. 6 159, 236 
Rom. vii. 7 189, 305*, 316, 448*, 477 
Rom. vii. 8 575 
Rom. vii. 9 87 
Rom. vii. 10 133, 160, 189, 616*, 621 
Rom. vii. 11 189 
Rom. vii. 12 520, 575* 
Rom. vii. 13 41, 128, 189, 211, 346, 351, 

” 99% οἷν 513, 575 
Rom. vii. 14 98, 407*, 618 
Rom. vii. 15 160 
Rom. vii. 17 152, 618* 
Rom. vii. 18 320, 530 
Rom, vii. 19 160, 528 
Rom. vii. 20 618 
Rom. vii. 21 59, 149, 534, 557*, 571* 
Rom. vii. 22 401, 433 
Rom. vii. 24 37, 189*, 197, 237*, 286*, 634 
Rom. vii. 25 62, 221, 378, 601* 
Rom. viii. 1 135*, 890, 445 
Rom. viii. 2 126, 137*, 197 
Rom. viii. 3 231*,235*, 387", 534, 574*,624 
Rom. viii. 4 57, 58, 134, 420, 477, 482, 582 
Rom. viii. 5 56, 402, 447, 453 
Rom. viii. 6 453* 
Rom. viii. 7 397, 594 
Rom. viii. 8 452* 
Rom. viii. 9 57,122, 195, 448, 477, 478 
Rom. viii. 10 120 
Rom. viii. 11 292, 363, 399 
Rom. viii. 12 209, 326*, 445, 556* 
Rom. viii. 14 122 
Rom. viii. 15 887, 397, 521, 609 
Rom. viii. 16 122 
Rom. viii. 17 441, 459, 460, 585 
Rom. viii. 18 218", 321, 384, 405*, 550 





Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 


” 


Rom. 
Rom. 


Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 


Rom, 


Rom. 


viii. 20 
viii. 21 
Viii. 22 
viii. 23 


703 


58, 399*, 485 
197, 531, 621 
124, 610 


117*, 150, 187*, 528, 531* 


583, 637 


216, 284*, 340, 437* 
292, 379, 423, 543 
97, 109, 112, 168, 299*, 433 


122, 400*, 584 
120, 534 


158, 195, 228, 561 


277*, 278 
382, 383, 584 


90, 154, 379, 560 
60, 180, 203, 234, 350, 382, 


431, 508, 513 
382 

185, 197, 440 
188, 562 

488 

133 


248*, 390*, 537, 540, 562 


639 


32, 71, 135, 283*, 370, 382, 621 


177%, 520 


60, 230, 375, 401, 551*, 586* 
160, 171, 271, 339%, 597* 


40, 575 


110, 160, 228, 514 


583* 


131, 193*, 425, 441, 459, 484, 


561, 562, 589* 
245, 583 

113, 549 

395, 500 

66, 88, 221 
85, 445, 598* 
82, 143, 254 
85, 588 


274*, 280*, 588 

183, 465*, 511, 549, 559 
105, 112, 191, 366, 397, 550 
108, 235, 570*, 599 


409, 570* 
528, 627 
385, 476, 485 
615 

383 
304, 602, 605 
139, 186, 443 
90, 636* 
582, 617* 


704 
Rom. ix. 33 
Rom. x. 1 
Rom. x. 2 
Rom. x. 3 
Rom. x. 4 
Rom. x. 5 
Rom. x. 6 
Rom. x. 7 
Rom. x. 8 
Rom. x. 10 
Rom. x. 12 
Rom. x. 14 
» 3) ” 
Rom. x. 15 
Rom. x. 16 
Rom. x. 17 
Rom. x. 18 
Rom. x. 19 
” ”» ΕΣ 
Rom. x. 20 
Rom. x. 21 
Rom. xi. 1 
Rom. xi. 2 
Rom. xi. 4 
Rom. xi. 6 
Rom. xi. 7 
Rom. xi. 8 
Rom. xi. 10 
Rom. xi. 11 
Rom. xi. 12 
Rom. xi. 13 
Rom. xi. 15 
Rom. xi. 16 
Rom. xi. 17 
Rom. xi. 18 
Rom. xi. 19 
Rom. xi. 20 
Rom. xi. 21 
” ” ” 
Rom. xi. 22 
Rom. xi. 23 
Rom. xi. 24 
Rom. xi. 25 
Rom. xi. 26 
Rom. xi. 27 
Rom. xi. 28 
Rom. xi. 30 
Rom. xi. 31 
Rom. xi. 32 
Rom. xi. 33 
Rom, xi. 35 


N. T. INDEX. 


233, 435 

133, 883, 412, 537, 575*, 586 
185*, 212, 403*, 447 

186*, 447, 575* 

123, 447 

133, 447 

136, 186 

318 

195 

120, 396, 611, 639 

397 

199, 82, 158*, 166, 279*, 285%, 
480, 632 

118, 477, 606 

171 

128, 367, 411, 445, 558 

111, 147*, 511*, 559 

114*, 392, 393, 442, 464%, 
476*, 511, 528 

219, 469* 

405 

448, 511 

382, 385 

179* 

283*, 480, 582, 618* 

200 

: 94 
63 

458, 459, 586 

639 

192*, 408*, 409, 551, 575* 
521 

582*, 584, 585 

200, 292, 391*, 687, 638 

76, 292, 431*, 470, 501, 619* 


118, 280* 

216", 313* 

193*, 401, 425, 448, 474*, 
478, 504*, 598* 

363, 578 

620* 

154, 429, 430 

42, 211, 287, 423*, 477 
428 

131, 193*, 308 

401 

216, 440 

60, 1585, 459%, 550 
178, 397*, 459, 610, 622 
191*, 519, 639 

436 





Rom. xi. 36 108, 379*, 418* 
Rom. xii. 1 58, 231, 332, 381*, 533* 
Rom. xii. 2 519, 578 
Rom. xii. 3 400, 404, 433, 481, 550, 638 
Rom. xii. 4 548 
Rom. xii. 5 110, 249 
Rom. xii. 6 352, 440, 545, 578*, 582 
Rom. xii. 7 545, 578* 
Rom. ‘xii. 8 545 
Rom. xii. 9 537, 585, 586* 
Rom. xii. 10 215 
Rom. xii. 11 476 
Rom. xii. 12 210, 217*, 433 
Rom. xii. 14 “537 
Rom. xii. 15 376 
Rom. xii. 16 219, 395*, 397, 537, 580 
Rom. xii. 18 230, 585 
Rom. xii. 19 594 
Rom. xii. 20 77, 298, 313*, 444, 580 
Rom. xii. 21 537 
Rom. xiii. 1 122, 156*, 363, 370, 371, 

” 2 2» 537, 582* 
Rom. xiii. 2 212, 274, 301, 429 
Rom. xiii. 3 313, 368, 481, 524 
Rom. xiii. 4 192, 293 
Rom. xiii. 5 319, 585 
Rom. xiii. 6 317, 631* 
Rom. xiii. 7 590* 
Rom. xiii. 8 47,123, 209,273,323, 499, 501* 
Rom. xiii. 9 87, 109, 151, 316, 502, 565 
Rom. xiii. 11. 196, 239, 319, 366*, 551, 

Dae 565*, 573*, 585 
Rom. xiii. 1 219, 477 
Rom. xiii. 14 396, 397, 417, 549, 556* 
Rom. xiv. 1 174, 397, 476 
Rom. xiv. 2 105, 322* 
Rom. xiv. 3 482 
Rom. xiv. 4 152, 154, 210 
Rom. xiv. 5 154, 404* 
Rom. xiv. 6 212 
Rom. xiv. 7 441 
Rom. xiv. 8 295* 
Rom. xiv. 9 161, 206, 276, 457, 552* 
Rom. xiv. 10 440 
Rom. xiv. 11 209, 449, 457* 
Rom. xiv. 13 828, 502, 529, 619 
Rom. xiv. 14 152, 160, 390*, 609 
Rom. xiv. 15 383, 402, 619 
Rom. xiv. 16 155, 502 
Rom. xiv. 17 139, 390*, 552 


Rom. xiv. 
Rom. xiy. 
Rom. xiv. 


” » 


Rom. xiv. 
Rom. xiv. 


Rom. xv. 
Rom. xv. 
Rom. xv. 
Rom. xy. 
Rom. xv. 
Rom. xv. 
Rom. xy. 
Rom. xv. 
. XV. 
. XY. 
. XV. 
. Xv. 
xv. 
xy. 
. Xv. 
. XV. 
xv. 
” 

. XY. 
. XY. 
. ΧΥ. 
ea 2 


. XV. 
- XV. 
- XV. 
. XY. 
- XV. 
+ XY. 
» XV. 
» XV. 
- XV. 
- XV. 


ον. ἢ 


. XVi. 
. Xvi. 
. ΧΥΪ. 
. Xvi. 
. XVi. 
. Xvi. 
. XVi. 
. Xvi. 
. Xvi. 
. Xvi. 
. Xvi. 
. Xvi. 


N. T. INDEX. 


19 ~~~ 188 
20 380, 443 
21 65, 158, 198, 320, 475*, 488 
Ὁ ' 583*, 584 
22 159, 386, 483, 508, 585 
23 262, 273*, 298, 582 
1 - 476 
2 397 
3 74, 118, 222, 448, 574*, 599 
4 153*, 189* 
5 78, 185, 286, 321, 401 
6 388 
7 118, 122 
8 122, 153, 185, 334, 383 
9 322*, 332*, 383 
11 814 
12 206, 233 
13 185, 201, 410 
14 201, 373 
15 243*, 278,379, 399*,455,617* 
16 223*, 455, 531 
17 230, 390, 455* 
18 158, 166, 216, 217, 279, 
᾿ 498, 552 
19 65, 118, 334 
20 556*, 615 
21 82, 575, 599 
22 268, 325, 604 
23 324, 326, 483 
24 198, 201, 308*, 321, 331, 472* 
25 265, 342* 
26 133, 256 
27 200, 209, 292, 448 
28 343, 378*, 385, 621 
29 384 
30 332, 381 
31 133, 234 
32 122 
33 585 
1 133, 134, 343 
2 159, 234, 307, 390, 448, 638 
3 136 
4 ‘562, 566* 
5 185, 397 
7 143, 372 
8 103, 113, 136 
10 136, 190* 
11 66, 1905, 390 
12 890} 
18 155 
14 103 





Rom. xvi. lo 
Rom. xvi. 16 
Rom. xvi. 17 
Rom. xvi 18 
Rom. xvi. 19 
Rom. xvi. 20 
Rom. xvi. 22 
Rom. xvi. 25 
Rom. xvi. 26 
Rom. xvi. 27 
1 Cor. i. 2 
1 Cor. i. 3 
1 Cor. i. 4 
1 Cor. i. 5 
1 Cor. i. 6 
1 Cor. i, 7 
1 Cor. i. 8 

” >> 99 
1 Cor. i. 9 
1 Cor. i. 10 
1 Cor. i. 11 
1 Cor. i. 12 
1 Cor. i. 18 
1 Cor. i. 15 
1 Cor. i. 16 
Toric 17 
1 Cor. i. 18 
1 Cor. i. 19 
1 Cor. i. 20 
1 Cor. i. 21 
τον. 2.99 
1 Cor. i. 28 
1 Cor. i. 25 
1 Cor. i. 26 
1 Cor. i. 27 
1 Cor. i. 28 
1 Cor. i. 29 
1 Cor. i. 80 
1 Cor. i. 31 
1 Cor. ii. 1 
1 Cori: 8 
1 Cor. ii. 4 
1 Cor. ii. 5 
1 Cor. ii. 6 
1 Cor. ii. 7 
1 Cor. ii. 8 
1 Cor. ii. 9 
1 Cor. ii. 10 
1 Cor. ii. 11 
1 Cor. ii. 12 
1 Cor. ii. 13 


T05 


103 

118 

126, 251, 314, 382, 404, 429 
447 

283, 397 

280*, 621 

390, 521 

218, 401, 545, 567* 

186, 396, 435, 567* 

108, 168, 378, 545, 567* 


263*, 234, 530 
122, 124 

393, 412 

201, 566 

118, 185*, 566 

134, 201, 480, 499 

144, 157*, 417*, 438, 528, 
566*, 624 

378, 585 

62, 336, 381", 611 

65, 190* 

60, 153, 161, 195, 625* 
60, 118, 508 

301 

60, 298, 443 

118, 318, 496 

131, 185, 211, 217 

83 

75, 609 

144, 381* 

612* 

135, 441, 541, 612, 638 
235, 239, 245* 

317, 585 

108, 178,,189*, 609 

129, 178, 484* 

171, 477 

122, 371*, 439, 542, 550 
599* 


185, 342, 402, .607 
152, 420 

96, 126, 611 

420, 586 

218*, 385, 443 
137, 167, 193, 387 
304, 562 

168, 317, 575, 599, 620, 633* 
599* 

133, 271, 550, 551 
193*, 259 

194*, 637 


706 


1 Cor. ii. 14 
1 Cor. ii. 15 
1 Cor. ii. 16 


1 Cor. iii. 1 
1 Cor. iii. 2 
1 Cor. iii. 8 
1 Cor. iii. 4 
1 Cor. iii. 5 
1 Cor. iii. 6 
1 Cor. iii. 7 
1 Cor. iii. 8 
1 Cor. iii. 9 
1 Cor. iii. 10 
.1 Cor. iii. 11 
1 Cor. iii. 12 
1 Cor. iii. 13 
1 Cor. iii. 14 
1 Cor. iii. 15 
1 Cor. iii. 16 
1 Cor. iii. 17 
1 Cor. iii. 18 
1 Cor. iii. 19 
1 Cor. iii. 20 
1 Cor. iii. 21 


1 Cor. iv. 1 
1 Cor. iv. 2 
1 Cor. iv. 3 
1 Cor. iv. 4 
1 Cor. iv. 5 
1 Cor. iv. 6 
᾽» 3) 99 
1 Cor. iv. 7 
1 Cor. iv. 8 
1 Cor. iv..9 
1 Cor. iv. 10 
1 Cor. iv. 11 
1 Cor. iv. 13 
1 Cor. iv. 14 
1 Cor. iv. 15 
1 Cor. iv. 16 
1 Cor. iv. 17 
1 Cor. iy. 18 
1 Cor. iv. 26 
1 Cor. iv. 21 


1 Cor. ν. 1 
1 Cor. v. 2 
1 Cor. v. 3 
1 Cor. v. 4 
1 Cor. v. 5 
1 Cor. v. 6 


N. T. INDEX. 


116 
116, 559 
125, 300 


46, 70, 98, 217, 583, 594 


70, 226, 493*, 520, 594, 622* 


99, 447 
62, 308, 447 


378, 487, 442, 447, 455*, 550 


247 

583 

128 

192 

298, 300* 

404* 

430, 520 

265, 388, 457* 

53 

87, 150, 378, 443 
122 

166, 539, 638 
253, 287, 410, 613 
352*, 395 

626 

195, 233, 301, 575 


161, 527 
168, 337, 386, 580, 616 


184*, 211, 337, 420, 460, 635 
271, 350, 387*, 447*, 630 


108, 124, 371 


62, 173, 289*, 323, 382*, 386* 


516, 580, 590* 
76, 443, 452* 484 
302*, 538, 609 


127*, 228, 446, 453, 517, 528 


411 
92 
530 


125, 278, 342, 485, 573, 578* 


442% 
545 

133, 166, 167*, 226 
278, 484, 617 

586 

285, 384, 420 


884, 480, 550*, 615 
315, 429, 436*, 508 
160, 453*, 575 
391, 562 

160, 459* 

524 





1 Cor. v. 7 44,284, 448, 524, 528, 534, 538 


1 Cor. v. 8 
1 Cor. v. 9 
1 Cor. v. 10 
1 Cor. v. 11 
1 Cor. v. 12 
1 Cor. v. 13 


1 Cor. vi. 1 
1 Cor. vi. 2 
1 Cor. vi. 3 
1 Cor. vi. 4 
1 Cor. vi. 5 
1 Cor. vi. 6 
1 Cor. vi. 7 
1 Cor. vi. 10 
1 Cor. vi. 11 
” ” ” 
1 Cor. vi. 12 
1 Cor. vi. 13 
1 Cor. vi. 14 
1 Cor. vi. 15 
1 Cor. vi. 16 
1 Cor. vi. 18 
1 Cor. vi. 19 
1 Cor. vi. 20 


1 Cor. vii. 1 
1 Cor. vii. 
1 Cor. vii. 
1 Cor. vii. 
1 Cor. vii. 
1 Cor. vii. 


a1 oP ὦ tO 


ΕΣ) > »») 
1 Cor. vii. 8 
1 Cor. vii. 9 
1 Cor. vii. 10 
1 Cor. vii. 11 
1 Cor. vii. 12 
1 Cor. vii. 18 
1 Cor. vii. 14 
1 Cor. vii. 15 
1 Cor. vii. 16 
1 Cor. vii. 18 
1 Cor. vii. 19 
1 Cor. vii. 20 
1 Cor. vii. 21 
1 Cor, vii. 22 
1 Cor. vii. 28 
1 Cor. vii. 24 
1 Cor. vii. 25 
1 Cor. vii. 26 
1 Cor. vii. 27 


120, 301, 884, 477, 531 
106, 278, 481, 555* 
128, 129, 283, 445 
278*, 481, 572* 

211, 586 

818, 438, 538 


254*, 375, 613 

284, 292, 385, 638 
124* 

60, 160, 317, 550, 561 
80, 173, 175*, 300, 398 
214, 442, 451 

214, 254* 

488, 500* 


41, 142, 162*, 255, 442, 513, 


529, 609, 625 

369 

211, 586 

378 

47, 118, 192, 608 
183, 522* 

228, 238, 310, 538 
122, 163, 174, 195* 
206, 313, 386, 595* 


57, 159, 166, 320 
154*, 176, 398* 
106, 571, 582 
495, 588 

303*, 4945 


283*, 368, 440, 452*, 465* 


528, 603 

320 

77, 84, 292, 477 
197, 321, 496* 
262, 293, 565 

152, 496*, 502, 520 
150, 502, 577 


132, 271, 283*, 389%, 445 


311*, 386, 417, 518, 538 
85, 299 

169* 

583* 

422 

541, 582*, 595 

124 

538, 539 

314, 395* 

124, 455 


106,320*, 455*, 523, 568, 602 


197, 209 


N. T. INDEX. 


1 Cor. vii. 28 84, 205, 211, 277, 284*, 298* 
1 Cor. vii. 29 596,106, 287, 459*, 460, 484 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 


1 Cor. vi 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
3) 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 


1 Cor. i 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 


1 Cor. 


1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 


1 Cor. ix. 


1 Cor. i 


1 Cor. ix. 


” 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 


” 


1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. ix. 


vii. 31 210, 251, 340 
vii. 82 299 
vii. 33 - ἶ 109, 299 
vii. 84 215, 299, 519 
vii. 35 211, 329, 354, 430, 464 
vii. 86 77, 242, 296, 321, 332, 631* 
vii. 37 161, 193*, 483, 573* 
‘vii. 38 242, 243, 439*, 576* 
vii. 39 84, 158, 159, 819, 390, 584 
vii. 40 613 
viii. 1 84, 562, 565* 
viii, 2 499, 539, 565*, 613 
viii. 3 263*, 565* 
viii. 4 123, 444, 558, 565 
viii. 5 116, 120 
viii. 6 149, 419*, 579 
viii. 7 185*, 191, 198, 216, 450, 

ares 466, 550 
viii. 8 279 
viii. 9 211, 452*, 504 
viii. 10 184, 263*, 293 
viii. 11 394, 446 
viii. 12 155 
viii. 13 65, 506 
ix. 1 510 
ix. 2 211, 212, 444, 479* 
ix. 8 211 
ix. 4 319, 511 
ix. 5 228, 257*, 319, 511, 523*, 527 
ix. 6 324, 326, 465, 518 
ix. 7 198, 199, 216* 
ix. 8 402 
ix. 9 205, 316, 446, 495, 595* 
ix. 10 45, 394, 446 
1x. 11 155, 294 
ix. 12 185, 200, 209, 582 
ix. 13 84, 108, 433 
ix. 14 367 
ix. 15 162, 209, 218, 289, 276, 278, 

tly 337*, 386*, 550, 572 
ix. 16 293, 430, 447 
ix. 17 229, 260, 292, 465, 528, 

are 541, 620 
ix. 18 108, 137, 329 
ix. 19 87, 242, 257, 341*, 344 
ix. 20 87, 123, 278* 
ix. 21 87, 483, 484, 562 
ix. 22 170 
ix. 24 313, 598 





1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 COr. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 


ix. 25 
ix. 26 
ix. 27 


xX. 
x. 


woaonrnraurr ON μα 


ΠΥ MRM MMMM MMM MK OOOO OM OM OO 
_ 
@ 


xi. 8 

xi. 9 

xi. 10 
Site 
xi. 13 
xi. 15 
xi. 16 
xi. 17 


707 


111, 227, 582 
474, 484, 485* 
43, 502 


106, 407, 476*, 549, 609 
67, 255* 
133, 198 


114, 118, 199, 268*, 281, 525 


71, 232 

175, 329*, 527 
318 

74, 250, 502 
143*, 369 

106 


175, 405, 452*, 515, 527, 550 


78, 301, 504, 613* 

324, 325, 585, 590*, 594* 
223*, 313 

118, 164, 189*, 237, 628 
110, 201, 368 

114, 135*, 200 

53 

442, 520 

124, 125, 189*, 200 
284* 

495 

496, 583 

313 

550, 593*, 614* 

421 

150 

159, 216 

439 

483* 


582* 
205, 227, 453* 
114, 118, 122 


111, 344*, 381*, 411, 544, 594 


108, 150, 178, 216* 
811", 320, 437*, 478* 
122, 513 

447 

409 

374, 411 

381*, 409 

319, 433 

271*, 364* 

582, 613*, 619 

396, 420 


xi. 18 274*, 347, 413, 414*, 575, 576* 


xi. 20 
xi. 21 


319, 320*, 444, 576 
77, 105 


708 


1 Cor. 


2) 


1 Cor. 
᾽» 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
I Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


N. T. INDEX. 


xi. 22 86, 174, 285, 447, 511, 
9» 552, 594* 
xi. 23 116, 139, 144, 153, 270, 370* 
Brn 482, 438, 582 
xi, 24 153 
xi. 25 308*, 386, 403*, 582 
xi.26 42, 297, 308*, 317*, 454* 
xi. 27 202, 301, 441* 
xi. 28 199, 452* 
xi. 29 343, 552, 638 
xi. 30 267*, 274, 527 
xi. 81 150, 253, 304, 638 
xi. 32 391 
xi. 34 808: 
xii. 1 873 
xii. 2 182, 306, 457, 526, 571, 636 
xii. 3 122, 390* 
xii. 4 437, 540 
xii. 5 437 
xii. 6 258, 437 
xii. 7 405 
xii. 8 105, 378, 401, 411, 419* 
xii. 9 419* 
xii. 12 548, 606 
xii. 13 229, 440, 552, 621 
xii, 15 368*, 404*, 498* 
xii. 16 404* 
xii. 19 804 
xii, 22 240, 245, 528, 549, 550 
xii. 23 240 
xii. 27 125, 424* 
xii. 28 105, 568* 
xii. 31 182, 242, 265, 464, 466* 
xiii. 1 273, 292, 440, 441, 549 
xiii. 2 44, 527, 610 
xiii. 3 75, 226*, 289 
xiii. 4 520, 538 
xiii. 5 520, 538 
xiii. 6 210, 232, 433, 520, 538 
xiii. 7 520, 538 
xiii. 8 520, 538, 585 
xiii. 10 109 
xiii. 11 80, 268, 270, 296, 609 
xiii. 12 153*, 263*, 377, 380*, 404* 
xiii. 13 240*, 242* 
xiv. 1 453*, 577% 
xiv. 2 549 
xiv. 4 122, 150 
xiv. 5 294*, 129, 289, 577, 605* 
xiv. 6 887, 420, 440, 612 





1 Cor. xiv. 7 
”» 3) ” 
1 Cor. xiv. 8 
1 Cor. xiv. 9 
1 Cor. xiv. 10 


54, 129, 134, 279, 344%, 
444, 553* 

258 

849, 878, 446, 561 
128, 638 


1 Cor. xiv. 11 217,218*,385, 387*, 444 577 


1 Cor. xiv. 13 
1 Cor. xiv. 15 
1 Cor. xiv. 16 
1 Cor. xiv. 18 
1 Cor. xiv. 19 
1 Cor. xiv. 20 
1 Cor. xiv. 22 
1 Cor. xiv. 23 
1 Cor. xiv. 24 
1 Cor. xiv. 25 
1 Cor. xiv. 26 
1 Cor. xiv. 27 
1 Cor. xiv. 80 
1 Cor. xiv. 31 
1 Cor. xiv. 33 
1 Cor. xiv. 34 
1 Cor. xiv. 35 
1 Cor xiv. 36 
1 Cor, xiv. 87 
1 Cor. xiv. 38 
1 Cor. xiv. 39 


1.Cor. xv. 1 
1 Cor. xv. 2 
1 Cor. xv. 8 
1 Cor. xv. 4 
1 Cor. xv. 6 
1 Cor. xv. 8 
1 Cor. xv. 9 
1,Cor. xy. 11 
1 Cor. xv. 12 
1 Cor. xv. 13 
1 Cor. xy. 14 
1 Cor. xv. 15 
1 Cor. xv. 16 
1 Cor. xv. 18 
1 Cor. xv. 19 
1 Cor. xv. 20 
1 Cor. xv. 21 
1 Cor. xv. 22 
1 Cor, xv. 23 
1 Cor. xv. 24 
1 Cor. xv. 25 
1 Cor. xv. 26 
1 Cor. xv. 27 
1 Cor. xv. 28 
1 Cor. xv. 29 


460* 

62, 279*, 285 
108, 279, 480 
_845*, 627 

62, 122, 241, 389 
2158 

184, 211, 212, 801, 496 
496, ὅ10 

518, 609 

122, 515 

520, 538, 625 
401*, 582* 

244 

249 

196 

229, 622 

122, 320, 333 
396 

168, 278, 613, 626 
811" 

828 


71, 488 

265, 561, 605 
412 

272*, 281 

250 

46, 53, 106, 171 
337, 565, 615* 
518 

123, 626 

123, 452*, 478* 
452* 

123, 185, 382, 445 
292*, 478 

135, 390* 

233, 242 

123, 527, 530 
123, 586*, 610 
389, 421, 440 
527 

124, 308 

297, 332, 523*, 588*, 589 
527 


272, 308, 522, 582, 585, 588 


112, 114 
123, 175, 279%, 382*, 480 


1 Cor. xy. 31 
1 Cor. xv. 82 
1 Cor. xv. 33 
1 Cor, xv. 34 
1 Cor. xv. 35 
1 Cor. xy. 36 
1 Cor. xv. 87 
1 Cor. xv. 38 
1 Cor. xv. 39 
1 Cor. xv. 40 
1 Cor. xy. 41 
1 Cor. xy. 42 
1 Cor. xv. 48 
1 Cor. xv. 44 
1 Cor. xv. 46 
1 Cor. xv. 47 
1 Cor. xv. 49 
1 Cor. xv. 50 
1 Cor. xv. 51 
1 Cor. xv. 52 
1 Cor. xv. 53 
1 Cor. xv. 54 
1 Cor. xv. 56 
1 Cor. xy. 57 
1 Cor. xv. 58 


1 Cor. xvi. 1 
1 Cor. xvi. 2 
1 Cor. xvi. 3 
ΕΣ] ” ”» 
1 Cor. xvi. 4 
1 Cor. xvi. 5 
1 Cor. xvi. 6 
1 Cor. xvi. 7 
1 Cor. xvi. 9 
1 Cor. xvi. 10 
1 Cor. xvi. 12 
1 Cor. xvi. 13 
1 Cor. xvi. 15 
1 Cor. xvi. 17 
1 Cor. xvi. 21 
1 Cor. xvi. 22 
2 Cor. i 
2 Cor. i 
2 Cor. i. 
2 ΟὐΥ. 1. 
2 Cor. i 
2 Cor. i 
2 Cor. i. 
2 Cor. i. 
2 Cor. i. 10 


N. T. INDEX. 709 


2 Cor. i. 11 222*, 412 

1585, 517 | 2Cor.i.12 70, 98, 122, 243, 247*, 420 

108, 128, 285, 585 | 2 Cor. i. 13 442* 
41, 640* | 2 Cor. i. 14 423”, 518 

$12*, 314 | 2 Cor. i. 15 216, 283* 

266*, 280*, 442, 443 | 2 Cor. i. 16 431 
158,183 | 2 Cor.i.17 109, 395, 445, 460*, 476, 513 

294*, 340, 621 | 2 Cor. i. 18 449, 476, 585 
437 | 2 Cor. i. 19 272, 476, 558 

171 | 2 Cor. i. 21 521, 584 

586 | 2 Cor. i. 22 417 

120, 196, 217, 562 | 2 Cor. i. 23 340, 619 
123, 266, 522 | 2 Cor. i. 24 206, 210, 555, 597 


538 
549 | 2 Cor. ii 
234, 592* | 2 Cor. ii 


-1 161, 212, 323, 386, 482, 529 
at 108, 367, 368, 437 
59 | 2Cor.ii.3 159, 208, 278, 282, 409, 410 
78, 277* | 2 Cor. ii. 4 243, 278, 366, 379*, 550 
161, 518, 596 | 2 Cor. ii. 5 292, 497 
555* | 2 Cor. ii. 6 133, 209, 517* 

omy: 

. 8 

9 


89 ,123,385*,436,522*, 555* | 2 Cor. ii 46, 323, 502 

331 | 2 Cor. ii 120, 332 

541, 606, 621, 639 | 2 Cor. ii. 161, 278 

114 | 2 Cor. ii. 10 261, 264*, 448 

340, 341 | 2 Cor. ii. 12 145, 397*, 443, 453* 

344 | 2 Cor. ii. 13 145, 211*, 328*, 475 

2 Cor. ii. 14 23, 251, 389 

133, 313, 373*, 397 | 2 Cor. ii. 16 397, 584, 610* 

248, 307, 395, 401, 541 | 2 Cor. ii. 17 110 
60, 176*, 308, 310, 318, 

380*, 543, 2 Cor. iii. 1 87, 200, 508, 614 

8245 | 2 Cor. iii. 2 114, 134, 430, 431, 513, 638 

446, 562* | 2 Cor. iii. 3 98*, 384, 420 

159, 355*, 405, 440 | 2 Cor. iii. 4 555* 


283, 331 | 2 Cor. iii. 5 319, 367, 411, 597 

437*, 585 | 2 Cor. iii. 6 83, 191*, 228, 438, 527 

124 | 2 Cor. iii. 7 841, 480, 634, 635* 

62, 336, 373, 554 | 2 Cor. iii. 8 280* 
9 


313 | 2 Cor. iii. 236, 455* 

60, 125, 185, 515, 626 | 2 Cor. iii. 10 43, 271 

153* | 2 Cor. iii. 11 879, 411*, 424, 425 

529*, 531 | 2 Cor. iii. 12 111 

79, 479* | 2 Cor. iii. 18 329, 582* 

2 Cor. iii. 14 46, 584*, 565 

122, 139 | 2 Cor. iii. 15 296, 408, 565, 590 

551, 586 | 2 Cor. iii. 16 40, 308*, 565 

163 | 2 Cor. iii. 17 114, 565 

189*, 378 | 2 Cor. iii. 18 124, 174, 229, 254", 370, 

136, 155, 383, 527, 582* Dat ge a 419, 565 
440, 572 

83, 324, 383, 403 | 2 Cor. iv. 1 565* 





233, 128, 150, 214, 410, 459 | 2 Cor. iv. 2 41, 85, 87, 253%, 386, 405, 488 


238, 218 2 Cor. iv. δ᾽ 218* 


710 


2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 


iv. 4 
iv. 5 
iv. 6 


2 Cor. iv. 


2 Cor. i 
2 Cor. i 
2 Cor. i 
2 Cor. i 


2 Cor. iv. 


2 Cor. i 
2 Cor. i 


2 Cor. iy. 


2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 


2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 


2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 


2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 


iv. 17 
iv. 18 


N. T. INDEX. 


118, 190, 829, 482, 624* 
399 

168, 367* 

195", 236, 412, 460" 
855, 485, 520, 638 
355, 485 

189, 355 

123, 213, 446, 522 
301 

112, 351*, 401 

586 

155, 442, 463* 

235, 396, 411, 635* 
208*, 484* 


γ.1 122, 155, 191, 266*, 293, 524, 


x 
» 


Hig ath Se Sieh 4. SaaS ON Nel eS 
— 
i) 


Ke COAN DPR WD " 


dc. ats 
ee 
our Oh = 


vi. 17 


528, 531 
147*, 353* 
560, 616 


83, 107*, 868, 394, 448, 459, 


638 

531* 

352*, 430, 562, 573* 
41, 120, 379, 565 
443, 562 

159, 405 

186, 331*, 334 

41, 87, 352*, 594 
212, 582 

185 

161, 383, 445, 477, 558 
292, 301 

235, 390 

209 

145, 349, 618* 

262, 383* 

186, 382, 484*, 638 


332 
522, 565, 609 

483, 484*, 499 

78, 87, 181*, 389 

389 

182, 378, 389, 552 

389 

578 

271 

388 

530*, 620* 

211, 221*, 350, 406, 584 
41, 234, 443 

430 

74, 147%, 201 





2 Cor. vii. 1 186, 197, 344, 544 
2 Cor. vii. 2 538, 609 
2 Cor. vii. 3 49,329 > 
2 Cor. vii. 4 217, 383 
2 Cor. vii. 5 352*, 568, 572 
2 Cor. vii. 6 528, 534 
2 Cor. vii. 7 135, 234, 243*, 584 
2 Cor. vii. 8 584, 612 
2 Cor. vii.9 897, 402", 460*, 477, 496* 
2 Cor. vii. 10 402* 
2 Cor. vii. 11 161, 216*, 320 
2 Cor. vii. 12 48, 133, 278, 329, 354, 405, 
” 2» 582, 601 
2 Cor. vii. 13 240, 243, 371, 393* 
2 Cor. vii. 14 227, 233, 292, 375* 
2 Cor. vii. 15 205, 377 
2 Cor. vii. 16 410 
2 Cor, viii. 1 218 
2 Cor. viii. 2 381*, 386, 425 
2 Cor. viii. 3 562, 571* 
2 Cor. viii. 4 133, 155, 198, 631 
2 Cor. viii. 5 122, 572, 576*, 584* 
2 Cor. viii. 6 288, 329* 
2 Cor. viii. 7 193*, 315, 450, 451* 
2 Cor. viii. 8 581" 
2 Cor. viii. 9 157, 341 
2 Cor. viii. 10 828, 422, 480, 560* 
2 Cor, viii. 11 818, 324, 368, 560*, 585 
2 Cor. viii. 12 807* 
2 Cor. viii. 13 424*, 585, 586 
2 Cor. viii. 15 589* 
2 Cor. viii. 16 414, 585 
2 Cor. viii. 17. 242*, 443 
2 Cor. viii. 18 278, 378, 433 
2 Cor. viii. 19 391, 583 
2 Cor. viii. 20 53, 351* 
2 Cor. viii. 22 240, 637 
2 Cor. viii. 23 888, 578, 585 
2 Cor. viii. 24 174, 397, 602 
2 Cor. ix, 1 133, 447*, 576 
2 Cor. ix.2 65, 193*, 208, 222, 233, 272, 
3? 2) 9? 383, 422, 629 
2 Cor. ix. 8 576 
2 Cor. ix. 5 318, 336 
2 Cor. ix. 6 176, 392*, 394, 596* 
2 Cor. ix. 7 446, 587* 
2 Cor. ix. 8 637 
2 Cor. ix. 9 469*, 588 
2 Cor. ix. 10 286, 572 
2 Cor, ix. 1l 211, 572 
2 Cor. ix. 12 211, 572 


N. T. INDEX. 711 





2Cor.ix.13 118, 136, 186, 381", 572* | 2 Cor. xii. 1 124, 177, 454* 
2 Cor. ix. 14 204, 217 | 2 Cor. xii. 2 88, 121, 126, 160, 176, 372, 
2 Cor. ix. 15 $98,585]  », 9» » 417, 565 
2 Cor. xii. 8 111, 626 
2 Cor. x. 1 881, 397, 521, 558 | 2 Cor. xii. 4 83, 331, 626 
2 Cor. x.2 259, 321,.322%, 409, 443, 482 | 2 Cor. xii, 5 383, 454 
ee 527, 602 | 2 Cor. xii. 6 199, 159, 453*, 502 
2 Cor. x. 3 411, 638 | 2 Cor. xii. 7 177, 220*, 550, 561, 611 
2 Cor. x. 4 212, 248, 565 | 2 Cor. xii. 8 336, 383, 427 
2 Cor. x. 5 186, 621 | 2 Cor. xii. 9 118, 209, 240, 271, 284 
2 Cor. x. 6 332 | 2 Cor. xii. 10 282 
2 Cor. x. 7 122, 161, 195, 372*, 585 | 2 Cor. xii. 11 197, 282*, 422, 477, 538 
2 Cor. x. 9 310* | 2 Cor. xii. 12 106, 111*, 410, 575 
2 Cor. x. 10 522*, 563 | 2 Cor. xii. 18 403* 
2 Cor,.x, 11 161 | 2 Cor. xii. 14 41, 332, 625 
2 Cor. x. 12 81, 87, 150, 209, 218*, 331, 637 | 2 Cor. xii. 15 156, 245 
2 Cor. x. 13 163, 165, 318, 396, 530 | 2 Cor. xii. 17 158, 574* 
2 Cor. x. 14 90, 342*, 384, 396, 431, | 2 Cor. xii. 18 219 
ἦν 9 9» 474*, 484 | 2 Cor. xii. 19 155, 209, 383*, 508 
- 2 Cor. x. 15 331 | 2 Cor. xii. 20 65, 176, 219, 453*, 504, 556* 
2 Cor. x. 16 109, 318, 587 | 2 Cor. xii. 21 168, 207, 222, 343, 393, 482, 
2 Cor. x. 18 78, 87 fp ae og 494, 504, 554*, 635* 
2 Cor. xi. 1 72, 302*, 442 | 2 Cor. xiii. 1 250*, 265, 875, 440, 625 
2 Cor. xi. 2 117, 185, 258, 318, 534 | 2 Cor. xiii. 2 128 
2 Cor. xi. 3 133, 370, 504, 541, 621 | 2 Cor. xiii. 3 411, 418 
2 Cor. xi. 4 72, 109, 306* | 2 Cor. xiii. 4 86, 388*, 442, 541 
2Cor.xi.5 ': 196*, 422, 446 | 2 Cor. xiii. 5 626 
2 Cor. xi. 6 398*, 442, 580, 585* | 2 Cor. xiii. 7 219, 321, 460", 495, 513, 
2 Cor. xi. 7 208, 509* Fyne 555*, 617 
2 Cor, xi. 8 44, 405, 499 | 2 Cor. xiii. 8 382, 594 
2 Cor. xi. 9 134* | 2 Cor. xiii. 9 155, 161, 529 
2 Cor. xi. 10 _ 248*, 397, 449, 456* | 2 Cor. xiii. 10 278, 494 
2 Cor, xi. 11 582 
2 Cor. xi. 12 158, 286 | Gal. i. 1 122, 371, 378, 379, 418* 
2 Cor. xi. 13 111, 513 | Gal. i. 3 124, 139 
2 Cor, xi. 14 112 | Gal. i. 4 133, 383, 412, 525 
2 Cor. xi. 16 821, 583, 584, 605 | Gal. i. 5 108 
2 Cor. xi. 17 401 | Gal. i. 6 638 
2 Cor. xi. 18 117, 233 | Gal. i. 7 109, 118, 513 
2 Cor. xi. 20 255*, 609 | Gal. i. 8 159, 295, 296, 517, 518* 
2 Cor. xi. 21 40, 402*, 563, 618 | Gal. i. 10 80, 304, 509 
2 Cor. xi. 22 454 | Gal. i. 11 402, 549 
2 Cor. xi. 23 176, 217,243, 423*, 466, 578* Gal. i. 12 489, 492* 
2 Cor. xi. 24 869, 578, 589 | Gal. i. 13 269* 
2 Cor. xi. 25 74, 272* | Gal. i. 14 70, 243, 403 
2 Cor. xi. 26 188*, 217, 573, 609 | Gal. i. 15 367 
2 Cor. xi. 27 578 | Gal. i. 16 218*, 552 
2 Cor. xi. 28 533* | Gal. i. 18 428 
2 Cor. xi. 29 153* | Gal. i. 19 113, 633* 
2 Cor. xi. 30 222, 588 | Gal. i. 20 449 
2 Cor. xi. 32 60, 61, 138 | Gal. i. 22 215, 390 
2 Cor. xi. 33 429, 606 | Gal. i. 23 108, 353*, 545, 631* 


712 
Gal. i. 24 
Gal. ii. 1 
Gal. ii. 2 
Gal. ii. 4 
Gal. ii. 5 
Gal. ii. 6 
Gal. ii. 7 
Gal. ii. 8 
Gal. ii. 9 
Gal. ii. 10 
Gal. ii. 11 
Gal. ii. 12 
Gal. ii. 18 
Gal. ii. 14 
Gal. ii. 15 
Gal. ii. 16 
Gal. ii, 17 
Gal. ii. 18 
Gal. ii. 19 
Gal. ii. 20 
Gal. ii. 21 
Gal. iii. 1 
”? 3) 99 
Gal. iii, 2 
Gal. iii. 7 
Gal. iii. 8 
Gal. iii. 9 
Gal. iii. 10 
Gal. iii. 11 
Gal. iii. 13 
Gal. iii. 14 
Gal. iii. 15 
Gal. iii. 16 
Gal. iii. 17 
Gal. iii. 18 
Gal. iii. 19 
Gal. iii. 20 
Gal. iii. 21 
Gal. iii. 22 
Gal. iii. 23 
Gal. iii. 26 
Gal, iii. 28 
Gal. iii. 29 
Gal. iv. 1 
Gal. iv. 2 
Gal. iv. 3 
Gal. iv. 4 
Gal. iv. 5 
Gal. iv. 6 
Gal. iv. 7 


388 


60, 380* 

358, 380, 448, 504*, 632* 
255, 289, 545, 569* 
236 

170*, 568* 

46, 229, 260*, 271* 
258, 397, 562, 565 
152, 587*, 592, 613 
142, 149*, 550 
848: 

446 

216, 301 

45, 236, 405 

521 

171, 186, 266, 280 
120, 500, 510*, 616* 
87 

210, 428 

168, 227, 619 

123, 558 


75, 83, 135*, 149*, 183, 223 
400, 537, 549 

. 365, 509 

424*, 445 

71, 114, 411 

301, 391 

$25, 368, 407 

123, 136, 186 

383 

237* 

192, 402, 444, 553* 

166*, 375, 522 
250, 396 

123, 619 

124, 297, 379* 
116, 593* 
123, 139, 304, 508 
186, 397 

334, 396, 550, 558 
122, 213, 284 

80, 552 

445 


596, 


106 

407 

80 

86 

123 

580 

801, 379, 580 





Gal..v. 21 


475, 486* 
263*, 604 
253 

503*, 626 
227 

71, 223, 400* 
84, 305, 585 
289*, 638 
320, 329 

141 

283, 330 
407, 537 

173 

104 

118, 248, 562; 576 
109*, 112, 179* 
576 

240, 485: 
192, 402* 
506 

44% 


- 210 
997, 521 

73, 427, 429, 621 
120 

604 

637 

137, 214, 321 
558 

255, 302, 638 
394, 596* 

109; 151, 549 
219, 506 

307*, 460 

515 

65, 176 

200 

209, 476, 502* 


537, 580, 626 
170*, 613 
110, 114 

310 

483, 502 
284, 448 

278 

216, 290 
233, 287, 332 
123, 319 

437 

153, 207 


N. T. INDEX. 


Eph. i. 8 410, 517, 551, 586 
Eph. i. 4 125, 342, 386 
Eph. i. 5 342, 378, 402, 611 
Eph. i. 6 125, 163, 190 
Eph. i. 7 389*, 528 
Eph. i. 8 111*, 163, 164* 
Eph. i. 9 152, 342 
Eph. i. 10 397, 528 
Eph. i. 11 258, 262 
Eph. i. 12 58, 125, 184: 
Eph. i. 13 213, 216, 528, 562, 586* 
Eph. i. 14 166, 410, 531 
Eph. i. 15 133, 135, 137, 154*, 234 
Eph. i. 16 256, 376, 383, 412 
Eph. i. 17 78, 152, 290, 416 
Eph. i. 18 108, 298, 572, 584 
Eph. i. 19 134, 190, 421, 529, 611 
Eph. i. 20 125, 218*,235,384,430,573,592 
Eph. i. 21 420, 421, 527, 566, 615 
Eph. i. 23 114, 166, 167*, 258*, 260%, 

» 9» 513, 533, 638 
Eph. ii. 1 126, 412, 611 
Eph. ii. 2 238*, 401, 634* 
Eph. ii.3 80, 127, 176, 191*, 215*, 238, 

ΩΝ on 386, 410, 550*, 573* 
Eph. ii. 4 201*, 225, 399, 443 
Eph. ii. 5 218*, 565 
Eph. ii. 6 235, 278 
Eph. ii. 7 65, 137, 254, 410 
Eph. ii. 8 192, 217*, 411, 562 
Eph. ii. 9 459, 477 
Eph. ii. 10 1498, 155, 163, 192, 386, 394 
Eph. ii. 11 135,313, 562,566*, 578, 582, 602 
Eph. ii. 12 177*, 194, 197, 428, 465, 477, 

29 7) 237) 566, 578 
Eph. ii. 13 118, 341, 578 
Eph. ii. 14 114, 181, 228, 531 
Eph. ii. 15 136,138, 220*, 386,388,528, 621 
Eph. ii. 16 342, 416* 
F ph. ii. 17 607*, 609 
Eph. ii. 19 558 
Eph. ii. 20 128, 130, 185, 431 
Eph. ii. 21 83, 111*,136,149*, 193,342,396 
Eph. ii. 22 122, 317 
Eph. iii. 1 189, 521, 566* 
Eph. iii. 2 448, 560, 634 
Eph. iii. 4 136 
Eph. iii. 5 128, 218, 221, 566* 
Eph. iii. 6 318*, 389 
Eph. iii. 8 65, 69, 242, 319, 362 
Eph. iii. 10 128, 235*, 362, 459* 


90 





Eph. 
Eph. 
Eph. 
Eph. 
Eph. 
Eph. 
Eph. 
Eph. 


iii. 11 
iii. 12 
iii, 13 
iii. 14 
ili. 15 


713 


167, 256 

128, 137, 167, 186 
136, 166*, 234, 388 
404, 566*, 638 
111*, 116, 121, 615 


iii. 16 65, 78, 290*, 319, 378, 397, 417* 


iii. 18 
iii. 19 


Eph. iii, 


Eph. iii 


. iv. 11 


128, 144, 331, 340, 572* 
185, 217*, 346*, 638 
158 

108 


136*, 152, 163, 332, 388*, 566* 
202, 572* 

386, 572* 

417, 584 

375, 419* 

401 

225, 522 

69, 243, 581", 592 

104 

144, 157, 411, 615 

190*, 297, 528 

460*, 477 

397 

256, 386 

161,514, 526 

186*, 189, 215, 428, 526* 
213 

199*, 391* 

318, 321*, 322*, 342, 347%, 
410 

215, 263*, 611 

313, 342, 528 

120, 311*, 313, 494*, 584 
312, 491* 

234, 313, 353*, 501 

172, 363, 583 

125, 390 

312 


386, 438, 605* 

441, 485%, 615* 

270 

122, 128, 166, 167, 172*, 265, 
355*, 518 

501 

238 

184*, 562, 565 

143, 521 

47, 141, 146*, 319 
258* 

79, 90, 128, 312, 431 
300*, 474*, 610 


N, T. INDEX. 


584, 610 

217 

212*, 216, 351 
351, 383 

186, 351* 
154, 351 

122, 451, 530 
440, 451*, 582* 
30, 123, 138* 
482, 545, 577 
150 

278 


188, 262, 364*, 432* 


153*, 397, 448 
249, 315, 577 


182, 390, 537 


126, 316, 391*, 562 


2895 
189*, 313, 3885 
138, 537, 401* 
402 


310, 365, 552, 621 


192 
264, 537 
176, 189* 


235, 239*, 421, 496, 552, 609 


132, 189*, 313 
174, 432, 531 
416 


108, 134*,384, 393, 531 


709, 


123, 166, 313 


122, 388, 410, 412, 437, 631 


384*, 386 
126, 136, 401* 
161 

124, 377 


136, 587 

122 

110, 392*, 393 
256, 637 


109, 124, 126, 193 


143, 161, 227 


128, 148, 319, 329*, 383, 420, 


439, 543, 627* 
189*, 204, 388 


240, 336, 386, 416* 


416 


133, 140, 201, 229, 378 


243*, 332, 549 
63, 578 
137*, 243 





Phil. iii 
Phil. iii 


cConrouvrnrhr wd = 


- alll aul 
sO oO 


18 


ond by SY wb bw mw hy = 
SSSEnXNSSESRESS 


_ 
φΦ 


i. 11 
. 12 151,301,313,476*,477, 498, 594 
114, 350*, 383*, 430, 513 

122, 123, 141, 317, 471 


i. 13 


15 


. 16 
147 
. 18 
ii. 19 
ii. 20 


22 


559 


184, 332, 368, 561 
184, 209, 332, 368, 431 
90, 157, 216, 217*, 232, 387, 585 


128, 129 
128 
320, 333 


160, 169, 299%, 513 
240*, 245, 329*, 397, 578 


128, 161, 397 


- 136, 234, 287, 410, 466 


109, 211, 477 


166, 211, 477, 482 


259, 320, 513 
112, 572 


122, 526 
155, 337, 525 
583, 587* 

477, 482, 498 
582 
1775, 209, 323* 


342, 345, 387, 616 
122, 215, 257, 443 


140", 438 
191*, 235*, 390* 
122, 124, 551 


125, 410, 606 
128, 393 

40, 227 

831, 344 

300 

317, 422*, 577* 
45, 808", 331 
49, 192 


221, 288, 408*, 471 
70, 248*, 278, 346%, 548 


228 
93, 122, 191 


223*, 609, 638 


114, 209, 214, 216, 233, 485%, 


529, 593, 638 
344, 582 

196, 215, 520 
65, 128, 140, 402 


160, 168, 228, 274*, 281 


229, 235, 442* 


122, 183, 137, 139, 186, 390, 
392, 477, 482, 616 


τοι 
Ὁ της ἤξθρν ἐν τ». αήρ νο ππ 
-.,ὸῷ ὦ Ἔσο or ὦ » 


Θ 


Phil. iy. 
Phil. iv. 


Phil. iy. 17 


Phil. iv. 
Phil. i 


Col. 
Col. 
Col. 
Col. 
Col. 
Col. 
Col. 
Col. 
Col. 
Col. 
Col. 
Col. 
Col. 
Col. i. 19 
Col. i. 20 
Col. i. 21 
Col. 1. 22 
Col. i. 23 


a td oo ol i γαν κπὸ καὶ 
_ 
bo 


N. T. INDEX. 


439, 92, 129, 189, 325*, 572 
262, 263, 276*, 394, 638 

321* 

136, 205, 400*, 407, 431*, 620 
280", 285*, 585 
90, 316*, 513 

549 

183, 222, 530, 628 
114, 183, 532, 564 
124, 139, 141*, 155, 446, 
453*, 551 

324, 528, 624 


532, 573, 


301, 390, 523, 530, 537 
69, 125, 313, 439, 545, 584 

537 

219, 235, 585 

128, 212, 405 

126, 186*, 280" 

160, 609 

160, 280*, 313 

87, 233, 317*, 323, 382, 546 
152, 158, 159, 321, 347, 386, 
402*, 597 

77, 180, 318, 520 

155, 345 

84, 193, 200, 602 

228*, 414* 

597, 606 

237*, 275*, 366%, 452, 528, 

530, 631 

65, 137, 280* 

137 

629 


344*, 412 

135 

137, 573 

60, 103, 382 

122, 135*, 390* 

137, 412 

136 

237, 259 

189 

54, 124 

116*, 235, 272*, 389, 419* 
150, 419* 

123 

71, 588 

178, 187*, 190, 212*, 397 
132, 216, 341, 443, 571 
188*, 318 

124, 448, 475* 





715 

Col. i.24 86,166, 167, 189, 232, 382 
Col. i. 26 227, 573 
Col. i. 27 166*, 168, 330 
Col. i. 28 167, 609 
Col. i. 29 167, 258, 397, 410 
Col. ii. 1 76, 458 
Col. ii. 2 58, 65, 410, 572* 
Col. ii. 5 155, 215, 286, 292, 442, 444, 469* 
Col. ii. 7 216, 343, 431 
Col. ii. 8 109, 128, 401, 487, 503*, 520 
Col. ii. 9 546 
Col. ii. 10 572 
Col. ii. 11 144, 157, 189", 216 
Col. ii. 12 123, 190, 340 
Col. ii. 18 127, 148, 218, 342, 391, 412, 
2799»? 344, 433, 602 
Col. ii. 14 47, 138, 220, 271 
Col. ii. 15 141, 258 
Col. ii. 16 420, 502, 552, 615* 
Col. ii. 17 166, 532* 
Col. ii. 18 187*, 190, 232, 248*, 369, 
467*, 480* 


”? » 
Col. ii. 19 83, 128, 141, 202, 224, 247*, 485* 


Col. ii. 20 209, 252, 261, 370, 391, 428 
Col. ii. 21 488, 501, 594 
Col. ii. 22 127 
Col. ii, 23 849, 575* 
Col. iii. 1 292 
Col. iii. 3 271, 272, 391 
Col. iii. 4 530 
Col. iii. 5 1175, 166*, 167, 313, 531*, 553 
Col. iii. 6 265% 
Col. iii. 7 269, 386 
Col. iii. 8 107*, 116, 120 
Col. iii. 9 397 
Col. iii. 11 80, 440, 520, 552 
Col. iii. 12 176, 565, 611 
Col. iii. 13 440, 565* 
Col. iii. 14 166*, 393, 565 
Col. iii. 15 186*, 438 
Col. iii. 16 430, 566, 572 
Col. iii. 17 126, 307, 378, 420 
Col. iii. 18 182, 270* 
Col. iii. 23 307 
Col. iii. 24 8710", 371, 531 
Col. iii. 25 620* 
Col. iv. 1 126, 257 
Col. iv. 2 386, 410, 483 
Col. iv. 3 517 
Col. iv. 5 405, 424 


1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 


1 Thess. 


1 Thess. 


1 Thess. 


1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 


1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 


1 Thess. 
1 Thess. ii 
1 Thess. 


1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 


1 Thess. 


1 Thess. 


1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 


1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 


»”» 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 


1 Thess, 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 


"μὰ μα 
τ» τῷ μα 


be 

= 
_ 
ΕΣ 


iv. 16 


—_ »"»- 
aon 


= [γ᾽ pre el ye πὰ — ee pte 
COnoaanw ἢ = 


-- 
o 


ii. 4 
ii, 5 
ii. 6 
ii. 7 
ii. 8 
ii. 9 
ii. 10 
ii. 12 
ii. 13 
ii. 14 
ii. 15 
ii. 16 
> }) 
ii. 17 
ii. 18 
ii. 19 
ii. 20 


iii. 1 
iii. 2 
iii. 3 
iii. 5 
iii. 6 
iii. 7 
iii. 8 
iii. 9 
iii. 10 
iii. 11 
iii. 13 


N. T. INDEX. 


298, 316*, 318*, 585 

75 

60, 565 

84, 513 

103, 111* 

103 

102, 145 

107*, 337, 395, 550, 629* 
85, 626 

155 


136 

256, 344, 373, 376 

155, 187*, 190, 205, 615* 
420 

550 

111, 130, 175* 

133, 145, 420, 480 

122, 145, 298 

123, 134, 353, 594 


133, 626 

368, 411, 493" 

271, 340 

120, 488, 565 

344, 411* 

307, 541 

101, 198*, 204, 331, 622* 
205, 329, 482, 552, 587 
465 

128, 333 

122, 191, 258*, 465, 551 
46, 84, 154, 369, 390, 410 
355 

90, 137, 155, 329, 452%, 
594, 604 

243", 427 

437 

155 

446, 513 


483 

113, 386 

184, 328* 
483, 505* 
371* 

128 

295 

57, 226 

155, 552 
1189, 150, 316 
155, 417*, 528, 624 





1 Thess. iv. 1 109, 432, 513 
1 Thess. iv. 2 84, 379* 
1 Thess. iv. 3 819*, 427, 513, 529 
1 Thess. iv. 4 274 
1 Thess. iv. 5 134, 139, 486 
1 Thess. iv.6 53, 85, 115*, 171, 320, 433 
1 Thess. iv. 7 394*, 411, 417* 
1 Thess. iv. 8 497* 
1 Thess. iv. 9 56, 324, 8395 
1 Thess. iv. 10 133, 332 
1 Thess. iv. 14 541* 
1 Thess. iv. 15 387*, 506, 507* 
1 Thess. iv. 16 135*, 150, 247*, 385,390,431 


1 Thess. iv. 17 83, 185*, 391 
1 Thess. iv. 18 801 
1 Thess. v. 1 339 
1 Thess. v. 2 139* 
1 Thess. v. 3 65, 506, 541 
1 Thess. v. 4 460* 
1 Thess. v. 5 195*, 196 
1 Thess. v. 6 285, 502 
1 Thess. v. 8 120, 125, 195* 
1 Thess. v. 10 294*, 391 
1 Thess. νυ. 11 173 
1 Thess. v. 12 835, 386* 
1 Thess. v. 14 202, 405, 538 
1 Thess. v. 22 120, 427 
1 Thess. ν. 23 150, 286, 527 
1 Thess. v. 24 353 
1 Thess. v. 27 226 
2 Thess. i. 1 136 
2 Thess. i. 4 163, 383, 410, 533 
2 Thess. i. 6 122, 448* 
2 Thess. i. 7 257 
2 Thess. i. 8 475*, 486 
2 Thess. i. 9 125, 190, 371 
2 Thess. i. 10 260, 386, 389, 565 
2 Thess. i. 11 206, 397 
2 Thess. i. 12 180: 
2 Thess. ii. 1 883 
2 Thess. ii. 2 125, 274, 370, 378*, 421, 

” ».» 498, 618 
2 Thess. ii. 8 106, 288, 239*, 499, 500, 

Ἐν 529, 545, 599*, 600 
2 Thess. ii. 4 2538, 626 
2 Thess. ii. 6 178 
2 Thess. ii. 7 128, 258, 297, 550 
2 Thess. ii. 8 611, 639 
2 Thess. ii. 9 60, 158, 386 
2 Thess. ii. 10 189* 
2 Thess. ii. 11 236 


2 Thess. ii. 12 
2 Thess. ii. 13 
2 Thess. ii. 15 
2 Thess. ii. 16 
2 Thess. ii. 17 


2 Thess. iii. 2 
2 Thess. iii. 3 
2 Thess. iii. 4 
2 Thess. iii. 5 
2 Thess. iii. 6 
2 Thess. iii. 7 
2 Thess. iii. 8 
2 Thess. iii. 9 


2 Thess. iii. 10 
2 Thess. iii. 11 
2 Thess. iii. 12 
2 Thess. iii. 18 
2 Thess. iii. 14 
2 Thess. iii. 15 


N. T. INDEX. 


232, 475, 477, 482 

73, 124, 186, 417*, 527 
202, 229, 558 

69, 150 

155, 316 


584 

89 

137, 233 

118, 155, 185, 286, 316 
77, 482 

298 

351*, 493 

597 

161, 475, 476, 477, 478 
274, 347, 638 

143, 198, 381 

345 

119*, 253, 477 

228, 521, 527, 602 


2 Thess. iii. 16 150, 217 
1 Tim. i. 1 139 
1 Tim. i. 2 137* 
1 Tim. i. 3 315, 821", 4838, 488, 566, 570* 
1 Tim. i. 4 140, 488 
1 Tim. i. 5 139, 368, 570* 
1 Tim. i. 6 196 
1 Tim. i. 7 169, 253, 488 
1 Tim. i. 8 638 
1 Tim. i. 9 161, 211, 638 
1 Tim. i. 10 520 
1 Tim. i. 11 229 
1 Tim. i. 12 348* 
1 Tim. i. 13 341 
1 Tim. i. 14 133 
1 Tim. i. 15 107, 234, 585 
1 Tim. i. 16 288, 549 
1 Tim. i. 18 224, 387* 
1 Tim. i. 19 406, 524 
1 Tim. i. 20 195*, 288 
1 Tim. ii. 1 256, 332, 611 
1 Tim. ii. 2 70, 386, 524, 593* 
1 Tim. ii. 3 534 
1 Tim. ii. 4 553* 
1 Tim. ii. 6 58, 383, 533 
1 Tim. ii. 7 527, 562, 565, 610 
1 Tim. ii. 8 68*, 283, 321, 332, 544 
1 Tim. ii. 9 68 
1 Tim. ii. 10 158* 
1 Tim. ii. 12 122, 206 
1 Tim. ii. 15 293, 516*, 631* 





1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. iii 
1 Tim. iii 
1 Tim. iii 


”? 


1 Tim. i 
1 Tim. i 
1 Tim. i 


1 Tim. iy. 
1 Tim. iv. 


1 Tim. i 


1 Tim. iv. 


1 Tim. i 


1 Tim. iv. 


1 Tim. i 


1 Tim. iv. 


1 Tim. i 


3) 


1 Tim. 


1 Tim. 


1 Tim 


1 Tim. 


1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 


1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 


v.l 


.Υ. 4 
1 Tim. 


v.5 
Wook 
y. 8 
v.9 
y. 10 
vy. 13 
v.14 
v. 15 
vy. 16 
v.17 
v. 18 
v. 19 
v. 21 
v. 22 
Υ͂ 

Υ 

v. 25 


vi. 1 
vi. 2 


1 Tim. vi. 3 
1 Tim. vi. 4 


1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 


1 Tim. ii. 13 


vi. 5 
vi. 6 
464 


T1T 


204, 537, 585 

117*, 525 

117 

205, 279, 452*, 477, 565 
191*, 430 

117* 

140 

69, 243*, 331, 537 
166*, 243, 298, 627 
128, 124, 260*, 413, 538, 
588*, 639* 


187*, 427, 428 
139, 622* 

343 

128, 164 

257, 313, 405 
140, 213 

410 

313, 537 

537 

296, 313, 520, 537 
205, 377*, 537 
79, 155, 287, 385, 386, 
520, 537 

537 


527, 537 
77, 347, 631* 


130, 233, 409, 410, 433, 611 


313 
205, 239, 259, 477 

477, 590* 

234, 387, 609 

347*, 432, 480* 

537 

621 

83, 590 

206 

585 

64, 313, 375%, 420, 605 
477 

200*, 209, 430, 501, 537 
127, 498*, 501, 537, 548 
171, 537, 559 

514 


407, 537 
148, 202, 502, 521 

56, 57, 537 

406, 518 

78, 102, 196, 229, 427, 428 
546 


718 


‘1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 
1 Tim. 


2 Tim. 
2 Tim. 
2 Tim. 
2 Tim. 
2 Tim. 
2 Tim. 
2 Tim. 
2 Tim. 
2 Tim. 
2 Tim. 
2 Tim. 
2 Tim. 


2 Tim. i. 
2 Tim. i. 


2 Tim. 
2 Tim. 
2 Tim. 


2 Tim. ii 
2 Tim. i 
2 Tim. ii 
2 Tim. ii 
2 Tim. ii 
2 Tim. ii 
2 Tim. ii 


2 Tim. ii 
2 Tim. ii 
2 Tim. ii 
2 Tim. ii 
2 Tim. ii 


2 Tim. 
2 Tim. 
2 Tim. 
2 Tim. 
2 Tim. 
2 Tim. 
2 Tim. 
2 Tim. 
2 Tim. 


vi. 7 

vi. 8 

vi. 9 

vi. 11 
vi. 12 
vi. 18 
vi. 15 
vi. 17 
vi. 18 
vi. 19 
vi. 20 


iii. 1 
iii, 2 
iii. 4 
iii. 6 
iii. 8 
iii. 10 
iii. 11 
iii. 12 
iii. 14 


N. T. INDEX. 

585 2 Tim. iii. 15 120, 370 
75 | 2 Tim. iii. 16 96*, 213, 416 

525 
120, 183, 313 | 2 Tim. iv. 1 537, 552, 630 
202, 224, 312* | 2 Tim. iv. 2 79, 314, 520* 
107, 875 | 2 Tim. iy. 3 83, 481 
246 | 2 Tim. iv. 6 152, 274 
136*, 192*, 236*, 273, 334 | 2 Tim. iv. 7 132, 224, 523, 638 
201 | 2 Tim. iv. 8 . 273* 
202 | 2 Tim. iv. 9 - 602 
183, 253, 314, 549 | 2 Tim. iv. 10 108 
2 Tim. iv. 13 22, 395 
402 | 2 Tim. iv. 14 78 
372*, 448* | 2 Tim. iv. 15 223, 314 
155, 544 | 2 Tim. iv. 16 476, 501 
582* | 2 Tim. iv. 17 74, 259, 514 
189, 314 | 2 Tim. iv. 18 621* 
116, 139, 534 | 2 Tim. iv. 20 219 
527 | 2 Tim. iv. 21 872 

819, 896, 438 
139 | Titus i. 1 402, 565* 
140, 314 | Titus i. 2 565* 
195 | Titus i. 8 534*, 565*, 568* 
73, 78 | Titus i. 5 112, 258*, 288 
219 | Titus i. 6 117*, 139, 386, 477, 525 
78, 242*, 321, 365* | Titus i. 7 192 
Titus i. 9 » 202 
138, 158, 313 | Titus i. 10 368 
160, 819, 378* | Titus i. 11 382, 480: 
314 | Titus i. 12 69, 154", 640% 
287 | Titus i. 13 217, 313 
477, 556* | Titus i. 15 88, 155, 518, 559* 

556* 
78, 286 | Titus ii. 2 217, 322 
313 | Titus ii. 4 290, 525 
140, 234, 287, 605 | Titus ii. 5 101, 154 
86, 148, 585 | Titus ii. 7 228, 257*, 406 
Titus ii. 8 64, 424, 477, 591 
313, 394, 588, 537, 624 | Titus ii. 9 154, 482 
78 | Titus ii. 10 131, 482 
334 | Titus ii. 11 132 
223* | Titus ii. 12 127, 344, 355 
621 | Titus ii. 18 130*, 344, 355, 544 
Titus ii. 14 197, 288 

124 
520 | Titus iii. 1 313 
245, 638 | Titus iii. 3 120, 593* 
366 | Titus iii. 4 139 
66, 229, 230, 406 | Titus iii. 5 66,139,163 189, 193, 390*, 402 
155 | Titus iii. 6 163, 163, 378 
74, 420 | Titus iii. 7 157, 216 
614* | Titus iii. 8 108, 205, 253 


314, 365 





Titus iii. 9 68, 78, 524 


Titus iii. 12 
Titus iii. 13 
Titus iii. 14 
Titus iii. 15 


Philem. 1 
Philem. 4 
Philem. 5 
Philem. 6 
Philem. 9 
Philem. 10 
Philem. 11 
Philem. 12 
Philem. 13 
Philem. 14 
Philem. 16 
Philem. 17 
Philem. 18 
Philem. 19 
Philem. 20 
Philem. 22 
Philem. 23 


Heb. i. 
Heb. i. 
Heb. i 
Heb. i. 


Heb. ii. 8 


N. T. INDEX. 719 


189* 
256, 345 

139, 155, 410* 

338, 416, 462* 

189* 

164, 628 

278, 638 

530 
189*, 270, 283*, 383 
270, 283*, 330, 463, 617 
403, 420 

313 

85, 227, 292 

278, 521 

137, 198, 286, 549, 638 
594 

519 


375* 
176*, 228, 438, 527 


125, 187*, 216, 237*, 256, 344, 384 


240, 245, 271 
210, 308 

352, 405*, 588 

182 

435, 226, 277*, 404 
435 

53, 266 

228, 271, 367*, 558, 605 
120 


89, 242, 248 
545 

205, 340, 379%, 545, 621 
545 

89 

442, 446, 447%, 454 


Heb. ii. 9 1985, 343, 399%, 462*, 534, 551 


Heb. ii. 10 
Heb. ii. 11 
Heb. ii. 13 
Heb. ii. 14 
Heb. ii. 15 
Heb. ii. 16 
Heb. ii. 17 
Heb. ii. 18 


320, 343*, 409, 627 

366, 448*, 585 

582 

200, 272", 281, 288, 541, 552 
329%, 380 

202, 267*, 606 

209, 227*, 230 

169", 387* 





Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


Heb. 


SRS ΝΜ 


Ἢ 


28 


. iii 1 194, 200, 314 
. iii, 2 60 
. iii, 3 67, 190*, 206, 240*, 271, 404 
iii. 4 850, 562 
iii. 5 340* 
. iii, 6 126,158, 409, 527 
iii. 7 575 
iii. 8 385, 401* 
iii. 9 436 
. iii. 10 85, 450 
. iii, 11 462, 500 
. iii, 12 194*, 329, 416, 503, 538 
. iii. 18 111, 151, 189* 
. iii, 15 571* 
iii. 16 53, 378, 426, 442, 510, 571* 
. ii. 17 73, 230 
. 111. 19 438 
ive 1 197, 319, 618 
.iv.2 87, 219*, 221, 299, 260, 475 


. iv. 3 128, 134, 265, 343, 344, 462, 500 


. iv. 4 271, 370, 522, 588, 590* 
. iv. 7 118, 199, 385 
. iv. 8 146*, 304* 
. iv. 9 445 
. iv. 10 154 421 
. iv. 11 162, 386, 388, 550 
. iv. 12 240, 247 
. iv. 18 147*, 406*, 442 
. iv. 14 202 
viV~ 15 91, 143, 475, 483 
. iv. 16 66, 397 
1 280, 382 

2 209, 229 

3 410, 440, 593* 

4 106, 550, 582* 

5 318, 582* 

6 592* 

7 152, 158, 197, 371, 621 

8 159, 166*, 344, 637 

vy. 10 229 
Ly. ER 115*, 215, 819, 450 
. V. 12 59,169,190, 324,339, 350*, 399* 
wee 200, 521, 562, 584* 
v.14 120, 195*, 399, 405, 528 
vi. 1 188*, 482, 531, 550, 635 
vi. 2 187*, 192*, 439, 550, 551* 
vi. 3 285 
vi. 4 122, 198* 
vi. 5 123, 198 
Vi. 6 212, 319, 339, 343, 344, 396, 605 


720 


Heb 
Heb 
Heb 
Heb 
Heb 
Heb 
Heb 


Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


N. T. INDEX. 


. vi. 7 131, 139, 200, 343, 376, 399, 438 


. vi. 8 
. vi. 9 
. Vi. 10 
. vi. 11 
. Vi. 12 
. vi. 18 
vi. 14 
vi. 16° 
vi, 17 
vi. 18 
vi. 19 
vi. 20 


vii. 1 
vii. 2 
vii. 3 
vii. 4 
vii, 5 
vii. 6 
vii. 7 
vii. 8 
vii. 9 
vii. 11 
vii. 12 
vii. 13 
vii. 14 
vii. 15 
vii. 16 
vii. 17 
vii. 19 
vii. 20 
vii. 21 
vii. 23 
vii. 24 
vii. 25 
vii. 26 
vii. 27 
vii. 28 


viii. 1 
viii. 2 
viii. 3 
viii. 4 
viii. 5 
”» »» 
viii. 6 
viii. 7 
viii, 8 
viii. 9 
viii. 10 
viii. 11 
viii. 13 


195, 351*, 584 
120, 202, 229 


163, 205, 319, 343, 438, 630 


321, 405, 544 
442 

222, 382, 575 
854", 443 


88, 192, 222, 242, 382, 575* 


216, 235, 243, 254, 387* 
134, 202, 386*, 549 

66, 69, 549 

472* 


110 
351*, 412 
488 


61, 412, 528, 534, 549*, 560* 


344, 486 
71, 177*, 271, 273*, 486* 
178 

340 

273*, 317*, 378*, 449* 
67, 261*, 304*; 482*, 562 
123, 192, 424*, 447, 453* 
370, 409, 433, 447 

271, 397, 447 

240* 

98, 99 

522, 588 

178 

104, 565*, 586 

377, 610 

329 

108*, 143, 330, 528 

382 

197, 438* 

154*, 421 

228 


384, 534, 574 
163, 176* 

299 

40, 121, 304, 589 


191, 260, 271, 285, 522, 562, 


588, 595 
89, 261, 271, 524 
304 

146*, 209, 436 
225, 401, 430, 571* 
184, 225, 352, 573* 
174, 507* 

195, 271 





Heb. i 
Heb. i 


ΕΣ 
Heb. 


Heb. i 
Heb. i 
Heb. i 


Heb. 


Heb. i 
Heb. i 
Heb. i 
Heb. i 


Heb. 


Heb. 


Heb. i 


Heb. 


Heb. i 


Heb. 


Heb, i 
Heb. i 
Heb. i 
Heb. i 
Heb. i 
Heb. i 


Heb. 


Heb. i 
Heb. i 


Heb. 


Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


Heb. 


Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


se ee ee 


1 133, 435%, 575 
2 129, 140, 236, 435*, 446, 
᾿ 6865 
8 177*, 246*, 403 
4 67, 116, 158*, 385* 
5 68, 320 
6 267* 
7 131, 203*, 577 
8 176*, 187, 482 
9 166*, 401, 484", 527 
10 635* 
11 189,242,410, 485,524,525, 530 
12 69,78, 86, 154, 176*, 353, 
a 380, 495, 524 
13 405 
14 75, 197 
15 185*, 287, 392* 
16 551%, 584, 585 
17 297, 394*, 480*, 549 
18 271 
19 74, 106, 193*, 401 
20 163 
21 443 
22 388, 554* 
23 58, 175, 177, 240, 585 
24 318, 528 
25 384, 401* 
26 271, 283*, 392* 
27 319 
1 163, 550 
2 43,134, 303*, 329, 345, 482, 508 
4 584 
5 253, 277* 
6 71, 222, 277%, 583* 
7 182, 183, 325 
8 71, 222, 351*, 563*, 583* 
9 244 
10 138*, 387*, 389 
12 344 
13 297, 344 
14 271 
16 225, 351*, 573 
17 . 506 
18 584 
20 528 
21 409 
22 73, 74, 75, 229, 621 
24 185, 397 
25 151, 245, 477, 582 
27 170* 
28 392*, 420 
29 524, 562 


Εἰ 

σ' 

4 
Exe eet ie - 
Cana ark ὦ DN = 


5 
55 
δ 
~ 
- 


i, 22 


. Xi, 26 


i. 28 
i. 29 


N. T. INDEX. 


549 

205 

142 

155, 524, 549 

192 
247*, 355, 585, 610 
136*, 156, 523*, 583* 
196 


59*, 484, 485, 546 


260, 386, 387%, 412 
829, 384, 539, 555* 

240 

71, 325 

319 
193*, 344, 402*, 484 

70, 228, 268, 298, 483 
376 

150*, 404 

120, 132, 162, 215, 589” 
268, 403* 

305*, 319 

204, 221, 530 

114, 269*, 437, 639 
405, 616* 

584 

71 

71, 341 

63, 205 

230 

228, 239, 384*, 592, 622 


549, 


92, 106, 147*, 201, 272, 353 
121, 251, 409, 431, 524 
67, 408 

280", 439, 550* 

120 

62 

288, 353*, 367, 460*, 485* 
* 62, 520 

116 

881", 412* 

258* 


344, 379, 423", 432 


125 206, 271, 364*, 435, 622 
215, 230, 234, 429, 454*, 477 


405, 429 

205 

168, 443 

122, 300, 397, 481 

445, 610 

221, 228, 436, 527 
91 





Heb. xii. 10 
Heb. xii. 11 
Heb. xii. 13 
Heb. xii. 15 
Heb. xii. 16 
Heb. xii. 17 
Heb. xii. 18 
Heb. xii. 19 
Heb. xii. 20 
Heb. xii. 21 
Heb. xii. 22 
Heb. xii. 23 
Heb. xii. 24 
Heb. xii. 25 
Heb. xii. 26 
Heb. xii. 27 
Heb. xiii. 2 
Heb. xiii. 4 
Heb. xiii. 5 
Heb. xiii. 7 
Heb. xiii. 8 
Heb. xiii. 9 
Heb. xiii. 10 
Heb. xiii. 11 
Heb. xiii. 12 
Heb. xiii. 13 
Heb. xiii. 15 
Heb. xiii. 16 
Heb. xiii. 17 
Heb. xiii. 18 
Heb. xiii. 19 
Heb. xiii. 20 
Heb. xiii: 22 
Heb. xiii. 23 
Heb. xiii. 24 
James i. 1 
James i. 2 
James i. 3 
James i. 4 
James i. 5 
James i. 6 
James i. 7 
James i. 8 
James i. 9 
James i. 10 
James i. 11 
James i. 12 
James i. 18 
James i. 14 
James i. 15 
James i. 16 


121 


200, 268, 405, 409 
196*, 531, 550, 559 
641* 

22, 197*, 259", 504 
206, 364 
147*, 317, 377 
66, 216*, 343* 
259, 433, 604 
201, 316, 566* 
566* 

432, 528, 566*, 609* 
134 

240 

259, 478, 582, 594, 633* 
262 

108, 460, 477 


566, 609, 


205, 467* 

585* 

232, 507*, 585, 588 
191 

552 

391*, 495, 496 
199, 366* 
165, 168 

154 

189*, 342* 
64, 209, 530 
205, 260 

143, 156, 382, 494 
373, 517, 614 
69, 243* 

133, 134, 137 
202, 378*, 423*, 592* 
69, 243*, 317, 346* 
109, 629* 


559, 


517, 


133, 316, 588 
111, 432 

235 

477 

201, 482, 494, 610 
274, 443, 447 
446*, 447, 502, 534 
528, 534* 

132, 622* 

622* 

75, 277*, 470* 
531, 585 

97, 194*, 371* 
369 

88 

537 


722 


James i. 17 

Pha a9 %F 
James i, 18 
James i. 19 
James i. 21 
James i. 23 
James i. 24 
dames i. 25 
James i, 26 
dames i. 27 


James ii. I 
dames ii. 2 
dames ii. 3 
James ii. 4 
James ii. 5 
James ii. 6 
James ii. 9 
James ii. 10 
James ii. 11 
James ii. 12 
James ii. 13 
James ii. 14 
James ii. 15 
James ii. 16 
James ii. 17 
James ii. 18 
James ii. 19 
James ii, 20 
dames ii. 22 
James ii. 23 
James ii. 25 
dames ii. 26 


dames iii. 1 
dames iii. 2 
James iii. 3 
James iii. 4 
James iii. 5 
James iii. 6 
James iii. 7 
James iii. 8 
James iii. 9 
James iii. 10 
dames iii. 11 
James iii. 12 
James iii. 13 
James iii. 14 
James iii. 15 
James iii. 17 
James iii. 18 


James iy. 1 


N. T. INDEX. 


54, 80, 189, 348, 395, 527, | 


537, 641* 

88, 170*, 537 
301, 329, 520, 538 
120 

160, 274, 479, 610 
278*, 281, 446 
140, 237, 388 

68, 125, 192, 477 
89, 161, 319, 529 


60, 176, 186 

446, 572* 

81, 106, 153, 430 

60, 185, 187*, 508, 572* 


163, 189", 201, 212, 228, 510 


86, 174, 206, 278* 
342, 353* 


168, 202, 280, 308*, 447, 582 


293, 479* 

313, 378 

100*, 203*, 432, 483 
108, 321, 585 
860", 452, 518 
580, 585 

116 

60, 280*, 367 
514, 541 

116, 183 

270, 433 

453*, 615 

106, 219, 344, 571 
116*, 440 


242 

479 

192, 541, 549, 599: 

307, 344, 472, 604 

524, 548 

54, 134 

132, 219* 

532*, 536 

222, 388 

332 

128, 591 

493* 

511, 137*, 169, 313, 611 
174, 432, 470, 494*, 511* 
350* 

576 

219 


161, 529 


James iv. 11 





James iv. 2 
James iv. 3 
James iv. 4 
James iv. 5 
James iv. 7 
James iv. 8 
James iy. 9 
James iy. 10 
James iy. 13 
᾽»» ” » 
James iy. 14 
James iv. 15 
James iy. 17 


James v. 1 
James y. 2 
James v. 3 
James v. 4 
James y. 5 
James ν. 6 
James v. 7 
James v. 8 
James y. 9 
James vy. 10 
James v. 11 
James vy. 12 
” ” ᾽ 
James v. 13 
James vy. 14° 
James v. 16 
James νυ. 17 
James v. 18 
James y. 20 


1 Pet. 
1 Pet. 
1 Pet. 
1 Pet. 
1 Pet. 
1 Pet. 
1 Pet. 
1 Pet. 
1 Pet. i. 9 
1 Pet. i. 10 
1 Pet. i. 11 
1 Pet. i. 12 
1 Pet. i. 13 
1 Pet. i. 14 
1 Pet. i. 15 
1 Pet, i. 17 
1 Pet. i. 18 
1 Pet. i. 19 
1 Pet. i. 20 
313 


μρ a tl oO καρ καρ αν 
eno vr ON = 


256, 470*, 482, 594 
256 

179*, 229, 307 

425* 

223, 312*, 537 

312, 313, 537 

313, 537, 639 

257, 261, 537 

117*, 162*, 249, 285 
516, 517 

109, 140, 447, 565, 590 
286*, 329*, 541 
147, 483, 494 


341, 516, 537 

274*, 537 

60, 89, 124, 212, 537, 539 
76, 371*, 537 

156*, 414, 416*, 537 
106, 174, 520, 537 

308, 314, 592* 

537 

372, 537 

228, 527, 537 

247* 

59, 79, 88, 222, 313, 372*, 
442, 476, 488 

169*, 285*, 541* 

408* 

209 

325, 466 

84, 436 

122, 197 


112, 113 

122, 137*, 188*, 237%, 286 
134, 402, 551 

520, 525, 611 

124, 332, 389 

232, 317 


139*, 235*, 340, 378, 385, 459 


226, 466, 485* 
156*, 342* 

355 

193* 

82, 134, 355, 495 
314, 343, 409, 477, 550 
238, 352*, 477 
111*, 402 

353 

138, 216, 525, 527* 
525 

123, 376 


N. T. INDEX. 


723 


1 Pet. iv. 1 120, 196, 217, 262*, 263", 271, 


1 Pet. i. 21 529 
1 Pet. i, 22 186, 389 
1 Pet. i. 23 840, 366, 411, 421, 549, 610 
1 Pet. i. 24 277 
1 Pet. i. 25 : 213 
1 Pet. ii. 1 176, 527 
1 Pet. ii. 2 204, 314 
1 Pet. ii. 3 448* 
1 Pet. ii. 4 122, 421, 427 
1 Pet. ii. 5 317, 527 
1 Pet. ii. 6 233, 252* 
1 Pet. ii. 7 160, 164, 529, 549*, 551, 571* 
1 Pet. ii. 8 397, 438 
1 Pet. ii. 9 381, 520 
1 Pet. ii. 10 343, 476, 485 
1 Pet. ii. 11 143, 352 
1 Pet. ii. 12 108, 342, 352, 384, 387, 411 
1 Pet. ii. 13 124 
1 Pet. ii. 14 379 
1 Pet. ii. 15 161, 319, 465, 529 
1 Pet. ii. 16 484, 494, 550, 573*, 612 
1 Pet. ii. 17 314*, 538 
1 Pet. ii. 19 518, 550 
1 Pet. ii. 22 167, 6]6* 
1 Pet. ii. 28 251*, 341, 590* 
1 Pet. ii. 24 149*, 210, 407, 428, 429* 
1 Pet. ii. 25 128, 156 
1 Pet. iii. 1 75, 154, 289, 351*, 352 
1 Pet. iii. 2 131, 342* 
1 Pet. iii. 3 195, 531 
1 Pet. iii. 4 386 
1 Pet. iii. 5 134, 154, 233, 268, 341 
1 Pet. iii. 6 224, 462, 494, 499, 562, 566* 
1 Pet. iii. 7 242, 352, 403, 534 
1 Pet. iii. 8 230, 520, 534, 586 
1 Pet. iii. 9 46, 161 
1 Pet. iii. 10 197, 326, 604, 614 
1 Pet. iii. 11 143, 429 
1 Pet. iii. 12 125, 409, 586 
1 Pet. iii. 13 437 
1 Pet. iii. 14 146*, 224, 293*, 443 
1 Pet. iii. 15 209, 227, 534 
1 Pet. iii. 17 294, 604* 
1 Pet. iii. 18 215, 373, 383, 412, 433* 
” 3) 9 441, 545 

1 Pet. iii. 19 543, 545, 608 
1 Pet. iii. 20 125, 156, 431, 457, 530, 543, 
” 37). 257 131, 545, 621 

1 Pet. iii. 21 1895, 191", 192, 194*, 528, 
she ping 543, 545, 549, 562 

1 Pet. iii. 22 543, 545 





» 9» 313, 412* 
1 Pet.iv.2 Β8δ4, 225, 226, 230, 329, 482 
1 Pet. iv.3 176, 209, 219, 262, 318, 319, 

999 334, 520, 627* 
1 Pet. iv. 4 484, 549 
1 Pet. iv. 5 552 
1 Pet. iv. 6 128, 223, 281, 402*, 441, 522, 

7 630*, 639 
1 Pet. iv. 7 397 
1 Pet. iv. 8 108, 351, 372 
1 Pet. iv. 9 397, 611 
1 Pet. iv. 10 210, 516, 524* 
1 Pet. iv. 11 108, 158*, 163, 582 
1 Pet. iv. 12 209", 405, 501 
1 Pet. iv. 13 200, 209 
1 Pet. iv. 14 109, 132, 401, 585 
1 Pet. iv. 15 440, 446, 502, 518, 519* 
1 Pet, iv. 17 324, 584, 586 
1 Pet. iv. 18 174 
1 Pet. iv. 19 51, 122, 254, 301, 524 
1 Pet. v.1 140,200,334, 384,528,529, 537 
1 Pet. v. 2 314, 385*, 477, 610 
1 Pet. v. 3 175 
1 Pet. v. 5 253 
1 Pet. v. 6 261, 407 
1 Pet. v. 7 351*, 430 
1 Pet.v.8 124, 189, 299, 528, 534, 538 
1 Pet. v. 9 123, 215 
1 Pet. v.10 58, 1845, 135, 148, 390, 538 
1 Pet. v. 12 278 
2 Pet. i. 1 130, 200*, 623 
2 Pet. i. 2 286, 545 
2 Pet. i. 3 109, 381*, 545, 617* 
2 Pet. i. 4 157,343,410, 428,524,545, 566* 
2 Pet. i. 5 142, 313, 443, 545, 566* 
2 Pet. i. 6 443, 545 
2 Pet. i. 7 443, 545 
2 Pet. i. 8 397, 489 
2 Pet.i.9 158, 185, 187, 454*, 480*, 553* 
2 Pet.i.10 128, 256, 290, 313, 506, 527, 

ae 549, 551 
2 Pet. i. 11 69, 126, 534 
2 Pet. i. 12 205, 227, 344 
2 Pet. i. 13 408*, 452* 
2 Pet. i. 14 551 
2 Pet. i. 15 89, 256, 321, 340 
2 Pet. i. 16 630 
2 Pet. i. 17 212, 278*, 351*, 365, 369* 
2 Pet. i. 18 352* 
2 Pet. i. 19 243*, 297, 345, 551 


724 


2 Pet. i. 20 
2 Pet. i. 21 


2 Pet. ii. 1 
2 Pet. ii. 2 


N. T. INDEX. 


161, 196 
122, 173, 549 


351*, 443* 
399, 400 


2 Pet. ii. 3 120, 149, 217*, 223*, 386, 422, 


3) ” 


466, 579, 639 


» 
2 Pet. ii. 4 205, 216, 342*, 448, 478, 545, 


3? 2? 93 


566, 569* 


2 Pet. ii. 5 82,249*, 342,344", 545, 566,569 
2 Pet. ii. 6 125, 190, 210*, 340, 531, 545, 


”? >> 2) 


566, 569 


2 Pet. ii. 7 131,193, 259, 369*, 545, 566, 569 


2 Pet. ii. 8 

2 Pet. ii. 9 

2 Pet. ii. 10 
2 Pet. ii. 11 
2 Pet. ii. 12 
2 Pet. ii. 18 
2 Pet. ii. 14 
2 Pet. ii. 15 
2 Pet. ii. 16 
2 Pet. ii. 18 
2 Pet. ii. 19 
2 Pet. ii. 20 
2 Pet. ii. 21 
2 Pet. ii. 22 


2 Pet. iii. 1 
2 Pet. iii. 2 
2 Pet. iii. 3 
2 Pet. iii. 4 
37) 237) 
2 Pet. iii. 5 
᾽» >> »»} 
2 Pet. iii. 6 
2 Pet. iii. 7 
2 Pet. iii. 8 
2 Pet. iii. 9 
2 Pet. iii. 10 
2 Pet. iii. 11 
2 Pet. iii. 12 
2 Pet. iii. 13 
2 Pet. iii. 14 
2 Pet. iii. 15 
2 Pet. iii. 16 
2 Pet. iii. 17 


118, 268, 545, 566, 569 
342, 569* 

237, 345, 594* 

243*, 395* 

159, 397, 440, 628* 
185*, 416, 430* 


108,174,192,194*,201 238,525 


185*, 219 

95, 388, 538 

342*, 529* 

219*, 273, 344 

273, 292, 428, 514, 534 


239, 282, 320, 334, 482*, 627 


109, 352, 588*, 641 


58, 142*, 527, 537, 550* 
190, 191, 205, 318, 529, 550 
376, 572 


124, 146, 267, 588, 591, 596*, 


612, 632* 
120, 121, 217*, 351*, 4195, 
446, 453*, 467: 

604* 

518 

395, 502 

197, 484 

87, 120, 125, 514 

342* 

121, 158*, 400* 

524*, 527 

219, 321 

228 

110, 148, 405 

216, 314, 427, 429 


1 Johni.1 124, 272, 567*, 607*, 609, 611 


1 John i. 2 
1 John i. 8 
1 John i, 5 
1 John i. 6 


562, 565 
132, 287, 443, 562, 567* 
161, 199, 499 
376, 537, 610 





1 John i. 7 
1 John i. 8 
1 John i. 9 
1 John i. 10 


1 John ii. 1 
1 John ii. 2 
1 John ii. 3 
1 John ii. 4 
1 John ii. 5 
1 John ii. 6 
1 John ii. 7 
1 John ii. 8 
1 John ii. 9 
1 John ii. 10 
1 John ii, 12 
1 John ii. 13 
1 John ii. 15 
1 John ii. 16 
1 John ii. 17 
1 John ii. 18 
1 John ii. 19 
1 John ii. 20 
1 John ii. 21 
1 John ii. 22 
1 John ii, 24 
1 John ii. 25 
1 John ii. 26 
1 John ii. 27 
1 John ii. 2 


1 John iii. 1 
1 John iii. 2 
1 John iii, 4 
1 John iii. 5 
1 John iii. 
1 John iii. 
1 John iii. 
1 John iii. 9 

1 John iii. 10 
1 John iii. 11 
1 John iii. 12 
1 John iii. 13 
1 John iii. 14 
1 John iii. 17 
1 John iii. 18 
1 John iii. 19 
1 John iii. 20 
1 John iii. 22 
1 John iii. 28 
1 John iii. 24 


ant oe 


1 John iv. 1 


197 
253, 537 
461*, 537 
587, 551 


537 
558, 577* 

161, 545 

483, 537, 610 
40, 185, 543 

- 587 

124, 524* 

267, 386, 524 
537 

639 

80, 146, 278, 400 
278 

185, 537 

529 

639 

124, 537 

73, 74, 8045, 317 
371 

172*, 278 

114, 128, 604 
128, 574* 

225, 530, 628* 
278 


277*, 339, 574*, 610, 612* 


287, 308, 314 

122, 460*, 537, 615 

122, 209 

114, 537 

267*, 288, 537 

537 

501, 537 

161, 267, 288, 537 

537 

514, 537 

161, 338*, 623* 

623* 

542 

273, 457 

40, 185, 543, 622 

116, 412, 489, 502*, 537 

368, 386, 537, 582 

155, 203, 537, 582* 

214, 256 

161, 338 

161, 411, 529, 578 
᾿ 


514, 537 


N. T. INDEX. 


1 John iv. 2 846 
1 John iy. 4 239, 537, 632* 
1 John iv. 5 537 
1 John iy. 6 128, 480, 537, 543 
1 John iv. 7 537 
1 John iv. 8 475, 537 
1 John iv. 9 188, 161, 218*, 417*, 537 
1 John iv. 10 161, 527, 537, 555 
1 John iv. 11 292, 448 
1 John iv. 12 ᾿ 499, 537 
1 John iy. 13 161, 199, 366* 
1 John iv, 14 527 
1 John iy. 15 114, 307 
1 John iv. 16 260, 553 
1 John iv. 17 137, 161, 338, 566 
1 John iv. 20, 274* 
1 John iy. 21 371 
1 John v. 1 178, 537 
1 John νυ. 2 161, 368, 545 
1 John v. 8 161 
1 John v. 4 161, 178 
1 John v. 5 537 
1 John v. 6 114, 128, 144, 380*, 498 
1 John v. 9 271, 537, 619 
1 John v. 10 225, 474* 
1 John γ. 11 161 
1 John v. 12 475, 537 
1 John νυ. 18 134, 278, 288, 549 
1 John ν. 14 161, 256 
1 John v. 15 295 
1 John v. 16 225, 475*, 523*, 530*, 537, 549 
1 John v. 17 537 
1 John νυ. 18 343, 537 
1 John vy. 19 487, 537 
1 John v. 20 138*, 157*, 162, 234, 274, 

eos 287, 421*, 528 
1 John vy. 21 814 
2 John 1 113, 141, 562 
2 John 2 411*, 578 
2 John 4 366, 526 
2 John 6 146, 161 
2 John 7 134*,140, 142*, 157,346,483, 632* 
2 John 8 259 
2 John 10 479 
2 John 11 200 
2 John 12 70, 278, 288, 331, 378 
8 John 2 3873* 
8 John 4 69, 162, 338, 347, 595* 
8 John 5 397 
8 John 6 122, 345 





8 John 7 
8 John 8 
8 John 9 
3 John 10 
8 John 12 
8 John 13 
8 John 14 


Jude 1 
Jude 3 
Jude 4 
Jude 5 
Jude 6 
Jude 7 
Jude 8 
Jude 9 
Jude 11 
Jude 13 
Jude 14 
Jude 15 
Jude 16 
Jude 17 
Jude 19 
Jude 20 
Jude 21 
Jude 23 


PREF 
= Ty BB τδὶ 
: So Bes y 
onNroaup ON’ "ὦ 


το 

re) 
Pai ey Ἵν - 
Te μῶν μῶν μῶ 
» — 
woo 


Rey. i. 14 


Rev. ii. 9 

Rev. ii. 10 
Rev. ii. 11 
Rey. ii. 12 


725 


$70*, 383, 638 
638 

51, 141, 278 

232, 429, 475, 494 
261*, 271 

378 

331 


190, 212, 421* 
256, 321, 330, 338 
130*, 140, 528, 534, 605 
343, 620* 

125, 188*, 216, 273 
230, 594, 623 

448 

209* 

189, 206 

176 

41, 71, 211, 277*, 370, 384 
163, 222 

116, 572* 

205 

114, 116 

122, 345 

137, 397 

85, 370 


75, 125 

126 

519 

68, 113, 182*, 536, 587 
197, 532, 536* 
530, 580 

222, 410 

268, 521 

184* 

66, 395* 

247 

525 

114 

65 

514 

163, 231* 


76, 321, 545 

76 
155*, 296, 541", 611 
595* 

87, 276 

$21, 545, 551, 582 
366, 589 

506 

132, 525 


. ii. 18 
. ii, 14 
. ii. 16 
. ii. 17 
. ii. 18 
. ii. 19 
. ii. 20 
. ii. 21 
. ii, 22 
. ii, 23 
. ii. 24 
. ii, 25 
. li. 26 


«i, ἢ 
. iii, 2 
. lil. 3 
. lil. 4 
. Wii. 5 
. lil. 7 
. iii. 8 
. iii. 9 
«ἀν. 10 
iii. 12 
”» 3 ” 
iii. 14 
. iii. 15 
iii. 16 
Rey. iii. 17 
Rev. iii. 18 
ili. 19 
. 11. 21 


iv. 1 
. iv. 8 
. iv. 4 
- iy. 5 
τὰν. 
. iv. 8 
«ἦν. 9 
. iv. 10 
- iv. 11 


.v.l 
5c Wale 
.v.3 
Rev. v. 4 
Rey. v. 6 
Rey. v. 7 
Rev. v. 8 
Rev. v. 9 
Rev. v. 10 
Rey. -v. 11 


N. T. INDEX. 
83, 103, 395,422,472, 610, 612* | Rev. v. 12 127, 520, 536 
223, 227 | Rev. v. 13 108, 847, 374, 409, 526 
155, 214*, 876 | Rey. v. 14 74 
198, 579* 
108, 579 | Rev. vi. 1 199 
427, 155, 520 | Rey. vi. 2 409 
52, 81, 535* | Rev. vi. 3 199 
831 | Rev. vi. 4 148, 583* 
376 | Rev. vi. 6 206, 587* 
339 | Rey. vi. 8 29, 108, 182, 234, 388, 574 
235, 528 | Rev. vi. 9 "420 
308 | Rev. vi. 10 164, 182 
574 | Rev. vi. 11 83, 174, 289, 297 
Rev. vi. 12 523 
155 | Rev. vi. 13 74, 523 
89, 155, 334, 514 | Rev. vi. 14 366*, 527 
230, 281, 506 | Rev. vi. 15 64, 128, 527 
514, 631 | Rey. vi. 16 409 
227 
65 | Rev. vii. 1 409, 552 
148, 155 | Rev. vii. 2 120, 148, 212, 341*, 602 
87, 289, 337, 526*, 610, 626 | Rev. vii. 3 552 
237 | Rev. vii. 4 250 
58 112, 148, 506, 507*, 524, | Rev. vii. 9 148, 520, 526, 527, 535*, 579 
536*, 574, 603 | Rev. vii. 11 73, 78, 125, 210 
524 | Rev. vii. 12 128, 520, 610 
155, 302 | Rev. vii. 14 of 388, 399 
334 | Rev. vii. 16 77, 506 
114, 117, 271 | Rev. vii. 17 191, 550 
226, 577 
470* | Rev. viii. 3 79, 212, 289, 514 
884, 574 | Rev. viii. 4 216* 
Rey. viii. 5 201, 272*, 520 
79, 535 | Rev. viii. 7 519, 527, 609 
68, 215, 221 | Rev. viii. 8 515 
227, 250, 535 | Rev. viii. 9 515, 536, 592 
114, 166 
108 | Rev. viii. 11 108, 182, 184, 362, 367, 515 
$45, 398, 526, 536 | Rev. viii. 12 460*, 609 
280*, 309 | Rev. viii. 13 117, 368 
210 
108 | Rev. ix. 1 348, 606 
Rev. ix. 2 606 
408, 409, 525 | Rev. ix. 3 396 
226, 585 | Rev. ix. 4 171, 474, 633 
491* | Rev. ix. 6 . 75, 86, 223, 506 
227, 491* | Rev. ix. 7 604* 
65, 114, 166, 526, 536 | Rev. ix. 10 324, 623* 
272* | Rev. ix. 11 534, 591 
74, 114, 166, 516 | Rev. ix. 12 179, 248 
890, 589 | Rey. ix. 13 65 
206 | Rev. ix. 14 892, 536 
535* | Rev. ix. 17 518 





N. T. INDEX. 


Rey. ix. 18 83,362,364*, 367,371, 429,515 


Rey. 


Rey. 
Rey. 


Rey. 
Rey. 


ix. 19 
ix. 20 
ix. 21 


623 


83, 210, 289, 366, 460*, 622 


143, 491, 606 


525 

852*, 376, 552 
612 

70, 612 

396 

222 

71, 277* 

155, 316* 

198 

393 


536 

48, 250 

436 

536* 

294, 541* 

. 875, 396 
152 

267, 589 
232, 281, 409 
413 

83, 514 

179, 248 
526, 535 
533 

514 

72 


528 

267 

525 

281, 334 

83 

148 

214, 327*, 519 
491, 616 

529, 602 

399 

66 

88, 148, 177*, 249, 370 
72 

232, 393 


65, 374, 410 
152 
237* 
210, 214, 584 


222, 405. 





Rev. xiii. 7 

Rey. xiii. 8 

Rey. xiii. 10 
Rev. xiii. 11 
Rev. xiii. 12 
Rev. xiii. 13 
Rev. xiii. 14 
Rev. xiii. 15 
Rey. xiii. 16 
Rev. xiii. 17 


Rev. xiv. 1 
Rev. xiv. 2 
Rev. xiv. 3 
Rev. xiv. 4 
Rey. xiv. 5 
Rev. xiv. 6 
Rev. xiv. 7 
Rey. xiv. 8 
Rev. xiv. 9 
Rey. xiv. 10 
Rey. xiv. 11 
Rey. xiv. 12 
Rev. xiv. 13 


” ” 


” 
Rev. xiv. 14 ~ 


Rey. xiv. 15 
Rev. xiv. 17 
Rev. xiv. 18 
Rev. xiv. 19 
Rev. xiv. 20 


Rey. xv. 1 
Rev. xv. 2 
Rey. xv. 4 
Rey. xv. 5 
Rev. xv. 6 
Rev. xv. 8 


Rey. xvi. 1 
Rey. xvi. 2 
Rev. xvi. 3 
Rey. xvi. 6 
Rey. xvi. 7 
Rey. xvi. 9 
Rey. xvi. 10 
Rey. xvi. 11 
Rey. xvi. 12 
Rey. xvi. 14 
Rev. xvi. 15 
Rev. xvi. 18 
Rey. xvi. 19 
Rev. xvi. 20 


121 


409, 527 

148 

62, 83, 128, 388 
65, 623* 

149 

461* 

62, 66 

307, 480 


79, 128, 289, 409, 420, 529 


127, 290, 536, 594 


43, 79, 536 
606 

70, 250 
472, 527 
538, 616 
88, 409 
126, 536, 552 
191, 609 
410 

87, 91, 191* 
210, 631 
186, 536* 


197, 234, 289, 317*, 341*, 


390, 460* 
535*, 579 
212, 324, 388 
133 

155, 212 
526, 536 
372, 557 


oe om 

247*, 353, 367* 
214, 508, 549, 585 
72, 83 

106, 432, 525 

201 


607 

523, 524, 607 
530, 536 

538 

207*, 533 
225, 229, 318 
350 

622 

120, 133 

514 

588, 585 

606 

191, 611 

616 


728 
Rev. xvi. 


Rey. xvii. 
Rev. xvii. 
Rey. xvii. 
Rey. xvii. 
Rey. xvii. 
Rey. xvii. 
Rey. xvii. 
Rey. xvii. 
Rey. xvii. 
Rev. xvii. 
Rey. xvii. 
Rey. xvii. 


Rev. xviii. 
Rey. xviii. 
Rev. xviii. 
Rev. xviii. 
Rev. xviii. 
Rey. xviii. 
Rev. xviii. 
Rev. xviii. 
Rey. xviii. 
Rev. xviii. 


Rey. xviii. 
Rey. xviii. 
Rev. xviii. 
Rey. xviii. 
Rey. xviii. 
Rev. xviii. 
Rev. xviii. 


Rey. xix. 
Rev. xix. 
Rey. xix. 
Rey. xix. 
Rey. xix. 
Rev. xix. 
Rev. xix. 
Rey. xix. 
Rey. xix. 


21 


ῷΦῷο “τ δ᾽ οἵ αὶ ὦ DY 


- "μ 
μ᾿ © 


μ᾿ Ρ- 
IDY> FON 


20 
21 
22 
23 
24 


N. T. INDEX. 


281, 368 


149, 201 

201 

94, 226 

201, 224 
208, 626, 628 
149 

65, 515 

78 

536 

520 

89, 141*, 388 
114 


609 
190, 514 

449, 515 

155, 205, 247 

163 

506 

29, 87 

87, 222, 410 

603 

222, 393, 408, 499 


234, 520, 536, 579", 591, 592 


579: 


75, 86, 156, 370, 427, 499, 


506, 507 
591 

223 

183*, 232, 408 
506, 616 

172, 506, 603 
114, 506 

177* 


526 
76 

250 

209, 536 

536 

545 

114, 582, 598, 601 
72 

536 

108, 182 

133, 392, 525* 
141, 191* 





Rey. xix. 16 
Rey. xix. 21 


Rey. xx. 1 
Rev. xx. 2 


Rey. xx. 14 


& 
0 
ἔ 
-- 
σι 


=e) 

Q 

< 

‘ei 

[«] 
oro. oe. δ, 
Ke ὦ ᾽ οἱ καὶ NS 


-- 


Rev. xxii. 12 
Rey. xxii. 18 
Rey. xxii. 14 
Rey. xxii. 15 
Rey. xxii. 16 
Rey. xxii. 18 





_ 246" 
83, 201, 514 


65, 116, 408 
536 

536 

106 
297% 
514 

148 

353 
525, 616 
72, 368 
133, 516 
114 
477, 478 


244, 523, 527 
211, 524 

500* 

228 

76, 148, 190, 552 
343*, 520 | 

132 

247%, 536% 

536*, 514 

41, 60, 121 

408* 

48, 65, 231*, 250, 534* 
249 

552 

506, 507, 562 
171, 506, 633* 


128 
66 

172 

120 

521 
598, 601 
538 
811} 
818 

552 

289 

585 

393 

638 

82, 594 


ANDOVER PUBLICATIONS, 


ae EMBRACING 
VALUABLE COMMENTARIES AND BIBLICAL WORKS. 


W. F. DRAPER, PUBLISHER, 
ANDOVER, MASS. 


Full descriptive Catalogues free on applications 





ELLICOTT. 
Oritical and Grammatical Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles, With 
Revised Translations. By Rt. Rev. Charles J. Ellicott, Bishop of 
Gloucester and Bristol. 8vo. 


Galatians. With an Introductory Notice by Prof. C. E. Stowe, $1.25. 
: Ephesians, $1.25. Thessalonians, $1.25. 





Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, $1.'75. Pastoral Epistles, $1.75, © 
The whole Set in Two Volumes, bevelled edges, $6.75. 


“Tt is the crowning excellence of these Commentaries that they are exactly what 
they profess to be — critical and grammatical, and therefore in the best sense of the 
term, exegetical...... His results are worthy of all confidence. He is more care- 
ful than Tischendorf, slower and more steadily deliberate than Alford, and more 
patiently laborious than any other living New Testament critic, with the exception, 
perhaps, of Tregelles.” — Prof. Stowe in the Introductory Notice. 

“To Bishop Ellicott must be assigned the first rank, if not the first place in the 
first rank, of English biblical scholarship. The series of Commentaries on the 
Pauline Epistle are in the highest style of critical exegesis.” — Methodist Quarterly. 


*HACKETT. 

A Commentary on the Original Text of the Acts of the Apostles. By Horatio 
B. Hackett, D.D., Professor of Biblical Literature in Newton Theological 
Institution. 8vo. $3.50 

“We regard it as the best Commentary on the Acts which can be found in the 

English or any other language.” — Bibliotheca Sacra. 


HENDERSON. 
Commentaries, Critical, Philological, and Exegetical. Translated from the 
Original Hebrew. By E. Henderson, D.D. 8vo. 
The Book of the Twelve Minor Prophets. With a Biographical Sketch of 


the Author by Professor E. P. Barrows. $3.00. 
Jeremiah and Lamentations, $2.25. Ezekiel, $1.'75, 

















“His Commentaries on the Minor Prophets and on Isaiah, are probably the best 
specimens of exegetical talent and learning whieh have ever appeared in England. 
᾿ς asl ben The same diligence, learning, sobriety, and judiciousness appear in Ezekiel 
as characterize the learned author’s commentaries on Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the 
Minor Prophets.” — Bibliotheca Sacra. 

“ The learning, the sound judgment, and the earnest religious spirit of the author 
stamp a standard value on his commentaries.” — Baptist Quarterly. 

H-4 


Books Published by W. F. Draper. 


LIGHTFOOT. 


St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. A Revised Text, with Introduction, 
Notes, and Dissertations. By J. B. Lightfoot, D.D., Hulsean Professor 
of Divinity, and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 8vo. $3.00 

“For a scholar’s use Dr. Lightfoot’s Commentary is invaluable. He and Bishop 

Ellicott worthily supplement each other. ‘The revised text is one of the best recent 


contributions to a complete text of the Greek New Testament, and the criticisms 
on the text are concise and to the point.” — American Presbyterian Review. 


“ Among the modern English commentaries on the New Testament Scriptures 
this appears to us to he the best. The critical dissertations, which form a leading 
feature of it, are in the highest degree valuable.”— New Englander. : 


MURPHY. 


Critical and Exegetical Commentaries, with New Translations. By James 
G. Murphy, LL.D., T.C. D., Professor of Hebrew, Belfast. 8vo. 





Genesis. With a Preface by J. P. Thompson, D.D., New York. $3.00. 
Exodus, $2.50. Exodus, crown 8vo., $1.25. 
Leviticus, $2.25. Psalms, $3.50. 


“The Commentaries of Murphy have many excellences. They are clear, dis- 
criminating, and comprehensive.” — Baptist Quarterly. 


“Thus far nothing has appeared in this country for half a century on the first 
two books of the Pentateuch so valuable as the present two volumes [on Genesis 
and Exodus]. His style is lucid, animated, and often eloquent. His pages afford 
golden suggestions and key-thoughts.” — Methodist Quarterly. 

‘‘ Like the other Commentaries of Dr. Murphy, his Commentary on the Psalms 
is distinguished by the ease and perspicuity οἱ its style, its freedom from pedantry, 
and the excellent religious spirit pervading it.” — Bibliotheca Sacra. 


PEROWNE. 


The Book of Psalms. A New Translation. With Introductions and Notes 
Explanatory and Critical. By J. J. Stewart Perowne, D.D., Fellow of 
Trinity College, Cambridge, and Canon. of Llandaff. Reprinted from 
the Third English Edition. Two Volumes. 8vo. $6.75 

“Tt comprises in itself more exceilences than any other commentary on the 


Psalms in our language, and we know of no single commentary in the German 
language which, all things considered, is preferable to it.” — Baptist Quarterly. 


STUART. 


Critical and Exegetical Commentaries, with translations of the Text, by 
Moses Stuart, late Professor of Sacred Literature in Andover Theological 
Seminary. 12mo, 

Romans $1.75. Hebrews, $1.75. Proverbs, $1.50. 

Ecclesiastes, $1.25. 


The Commentaries on the Romans, Hebrews, and Ecclesiastes are edited and 
revised by Prof. R. D. C. Robbins. 

“5 Commentary on the Romans is the most elaborate of all his works. .... 
Regarding it in all its relations, its antecedents and consequents, we pronounce it 
the most important Commentary which has appeared in this country on this Epistle. 
...« The Commentary on Proverbs is the last work from the pen of Prof. Stuart. 
Both this Commentary and the one preceding it, on Ecclesiastes, exhibit a mellow- 
ness of spirit which sayors of the good man ripening for heaven...... In learning 
and critical acumen they are equal to his former works.” — Bibliotheca Sacra. 

H-5 


THE BOOK OF ENOCH. 


TRANSLATED FROM THE ETHIOPIC, 
WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES, 
By Pror. GEORGE H. SCHODDE, Pu.D. 
12mo. pp. viii, 278. Price, $1.75. 


In the Epistle of Jude we find a quotation taken from “ Enoch, the seventh 
from Adam.” It was well known from many citations and extracts in the 
Church Fathers that an apocryphal Book of Enoch existed in the early days 
of Christianity, and was regarded by many with great admiration, and 
enjoyed considerable authority. Like so many secular and religious works 
‘of that period, this important book, the only apocryphal work cited by an 
inspired writer, was lost to the church and to literature. The numberless 
speculations and guesses made afterwards as to its character and contents 
were put to an end by its discovery in an Ethiopic version at the close of the 
last century. Bishop Lawrence, some time later, issued an English transla- 
tion, a book that now cannot be obtained for love or money. 

A new version of a book with such a history and of such intrinsic value 
will, it is confidently hoped, not prove an unwelcome addition to theological 
science in America. Here, too, as throughout Europe, everything that 
throws any light on the time of Christ and tends to explain the moral, relig- 
ious, and social atmosphere which he breathed, is studied by many faithful 
scholars with peculiar delight. In the complex of literary remains belonging 
to this sphere the Book of Enoch is one of the most important. The object 
of the different parts that compose it is entirely religious, and the contents 
are the heart-utterances of the faithful Israelites who wrote them; and thus 
the book is a reliable reflex of the time that gave it birth. 

In making the new translation Dr. Schodde has had aids which surpassed 
those at Lawrence’s disposal. New mss. of the original have been brought 
from Ethiopia, a reliable text has been issued, and a host of scholars in 
England, Holland, France, and especially Germany, have employed a vast 
amount of theological learning and historical research to unravel the mys- 


οὐ teries of this literary enigma. In preparing the Introduction and Notes, 


which occupy fully three fifths of the whole work, the translator has made 
a thorough study and conscientious use of these aids. He has critically 
analyzed the work into its component parts, determined the age, purpose, 
and language of each, and by thus giving the true historical background has 
sought to make the contents more easily understood. In the translation 
proper the object aimed at was to be as literal as possible, and it is certainly 
more reliable than its English predecessor. 

Dr. Ezra Abbot, who has carefully examined the manuscript, expresses 
the opinion that “ Dr. Schodde’s work has great value’ as an original and 
scholarly contribution to the illustration of this most interesting and impor 
tant of all the books of its class.” 


W. F. DRAPER, Publisher, 
G-132 Andover, Mass. 


Books Published by W. Ε΄. Draper. 


Haley. An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the 
Bible. By Jobn W. Haley, M.A. With an Introduction by Alvah 
Hovey, D.D., Professor in the Newton Theological Institution. 
Crown 8vo. pp. xii and 473. } $1.75 


From Professor Edwards A. Park.—“TI do not know any volume which 
gives to the English reader such a compressed amount of suggestion and instruc- 
tion on this theme as is given in this volume.” 

From the Presbyterian Quarterly.—‘‘ The book is honest, candid, and 
painstaking. It will be found useful to all students of the sacred volume.” 

“An able book, containing a clear and dispassionate discussion of a momentous 
subject. It stands unique in a field of its own.””—Jndependent. Ἷ 

“As an example of thorough and painstaking scholarship, as ἃ serviceable hand- 
book for all Bible students, and as a popular defence of revealed truth, it will take 
high rank, and fill an important place which up to this time has been conspicuously 
vacant.” — Congregationalist. 

“Tt would be difficult, by any amount of labor, to produce anything more con- 
vincing and satisfactory.” — Interior. 


Haley. The Hereafter of Sin: What it will be; with Answers to 
Certain Questions and Objections. By Rev. John W. Haley, author 
ot “Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible.” 16mo. 75 cents. 


“It presents, in a calm and admirable manner, the Scriptural doctrine of future 
retribution, divested, indeed, of the literalism with which it is sometimes presented, 
ous alerts its accordance with the deductions of a sound philosophy.” — Zion’s 


“ΤῸ is a scholarly, clear, dispassionate, and conclusive argument in favor of what 
is known as the common or orthodox view of future punishment. The whole dis- 
cussion is conducted in a spirit of courtesy and fairness towards all opponents 
which does credit to our current controversial literature.”—The Interior. 


Wright. The Logic of Christian Evidences. By Rev. G. Fred- 
erick Wright. 16mo. $1.50 


“ Beginning with a general statement of the principles of inductive and deduc- 
tive logic, which are illustrated by ample examples drawn from the whole field of 
modern science, it advances to the consideration of the personality, wisdom, and 
benevolence of the Creator, as seen in nature ; to the place of miracles in the Chris- 
tian system ; to the specific evidences of Christianity as discerned in the early his 
tory of the New Testament, and in the characteristics of the Christians of the first 
and second centuries ; and to the historical probability of Jesus and his immediate 
followers having been either impostors or deluded enthusiasts.” —Literary World. 

“The book would form an admirable text-book for Bible-classes or college classes, 
and will give solid comfort and strength to all readers who have τὰ desire to be 
able to give a reason for believing.”—Rev. Dr. Thomas Hill in the Bibliotheca Sacra. 


Wright. Studies in Science and Religion. By Prof. G. Frederick 
Wright, author of “ The Logic of Christian Evidences.” 16mo. $1.50 


“The chapter on inductive reasoning, with which the book opens, is as full, ex- 
planatory, and convincing as any one could wish, despite the fact it occupies only 
twenty-six pages. ... The grand point contended for and carried is that ‘ Christi- 
anity, in its appeal to historical evidence, allies itself with modern science rather 
than with the glittering generalities of transcendentalism,’ and that in its begin- 
nings science has no advantage over religion in solidity of basis.” —The Leader. 

“The article on Prehistoric Man, now appears for the first time. It is illustrated 
by a number of maps and cuts which enhance the interest of the story. The 
southern limit of the ice of the Glacial Epoch in North America is traced, and the 
connection of human implements therewith is shown.” — Oberlin Review. 


G-11 


Books Publisnea by W. Ε΄. Draper. 


Cary. An Introduction to the Greek of the New Testament. 
By George L. Cary, of the Meadville Theological Seminary. 12moa 
pp: 72. . 75 cents 
“ This small volume has been prepared for persons, either students of theology, 

or others who have not had the te of a knowledge of the Greek, and who 

nevertheless would be glad to read the New Testament in its original tongue. It 
gives the rudiments of the language so far as absolutely necessary for the under 
standing of New Testament Greck. It is well adapted to its purpose, and will prove 
of great service to such as have not had the advantage of a classical education.” — 

Lutheran Quarterly. 

“ The simplicity of its method, its conciseness and perspicuity admirably adapt 
it to the use of such persons. With a moderate degree of application, any one 
with an ordinary capacity for acquiring language may in a short time master these 
elementary lessons, and having done so will be able to ‘proceed at once to the 
rer. of the easier portions of the New Testament.’ ” — Theological and Homiletie 

ly. 

“This is substantially a primary Greek Grammar of the New Testament, in- 
tended for those who have had no previous knowledge of the language.” — The 
Central Baptist. 

“A handy little manual for those who wish to become familiar enough with Greek 
to read the New Testament.” — Zion’s Herald. 


Mitchell. The Critical Hand-book. A Guide to the Authenticity, 
Canon, and Text of the New Testament. By Edward 0. Mitchell, D.D. 
Illustrated by a Map, Diagrams, and Tables. 12mo. $1.75 
The plan of the book embraces, in the first place, a view of the present field of 

controversy on the subject of the Authenticity of the New Testament Scriptures 

as viewed from a historical and geographical stand-point. This is followed by a 

brief discussion of the leading points in the History of the Canon, and then by a 

résumé of the subject of Textual Criticism — History of the Text. In this part 

of the work, and the fourteen Tables which accompany it, care has been taken to 
combine brevity with the greatest possible accuracy of statement. The best recent 
authorities have been consulted, and the author has received valuable aid from 
eminent scholars in England and America, especially from Dr. Ezra Abbot, of 

Cambridge, who has bestowed upon the whole of Part III. and the accompanying 

Tables much patient thought, suggesting many new points of interest and value. 

One of these tables, for instance, shows at a glance hae was the state of civiliza- 

tion at a given period ; what writers flourished, whether poets or philosophers or 

physicists or historians. A second table shows what Christian Fathers were con- 
temporaneous. Another table gives a list of witnesses and actors in the scenes of 

Christian history and the places in which they acted. Others give catalogues of dis- 

puted books, the uncial Mss. the cursive Mss. ancient versions, etc. There are fur- 

nished also several facsimiles of different codices of the New Testament. 

“It is certainly ‘A Guide’ which must prove exceedingly convenient and val- 
uable to scholars. Ihave read and re-read it with the exception of some of the 
Tables, and have found it accurate and to the point, giving the essential facts clearly, 
and in a suitable form for reference. As a ‘ Handbook’ for frequent use I know of 
nothing equal to it.”” — Alvah Hovey, D.D., Pres. Newton Theological Institution. 

“It is brief, clear, and, so far as we can see quite accurate, and a thoroughly 
serviceable and important book.”—Congregationalist. 

“ This volume gathers up and presents in a comparatively brief compass a great 
deal that is worth knowing in regard to several branches of biblical criticism. 
It contains what every thorough student of the Holy Scriptures needs to under- 
stand.” — The Churchman. 

“The tables at the end are a feature of the book of peculiar advantage. It is to 
be recommended to all students of the New Testament.”— C. W. Hodge in Pres 
byterian Review. 

“Of this book it may be most truly said ‘ multum in parvo.’ It well answers 
the purpose for which it was designed. It furnishes the material necessary to a 
refutation of the charge so frequently made that the New Testament is largely 
mythical. It is a strong defence of Christianity.” — Baptist Quarterly. F-13 


Books Published by W. F. Draper. 


Davies. A Compendious and Complete Hebrew and Chaldea 
Lexicon of the Old Testament ; with an English-Hebrew Index. 
By Benjamin Davies, Ph.D., LL.D, Carefully Revised, with a concise 
Statement of the Principles of Hebrew Grammar, by Edward C. Mitchell, 
D.D. 8vo. Cloth, $4.00 ; Morocco backs, $4.76 


“Tt is in many respects an improvement upon either of the Lexicons now in 
use. Dr. Davies modestly calls himself the editor of the work, but it is anything 
but a mere revision or compilation. Nearly every page bears evidence of original 
thought and independent investigation, and many improvements have been made 
upon the work of previous lexicographers in the handling of roots and derivatives. 

*‘ While the Lexicons of Gesenius and Fiirst have been made the chief basi3, — 
as they must be for any genuine advance in this direction, — the definitions have all 
been re-written and condensed without being abridged, so as to make them more 
convenient for reference, and the work less bulky and expensive.” 

So far from being an abridgment, the present edition will be found to contain over a 

more Hebrew words or forms than appear in Tregelles’s or Robinson’s Gesenius, 
besides incorporating into the body of the work all the grammatical forms con- 
tained in Robinson’s Analytical Appendix. 

“T regard it as a very valuable addition to our Hebrew text-books. It is con- 
cise, accurate, sufficiently full in definitions, and admirably adapted for the use of 
students. Prof. Mitchell’s admirable compend of the Principles of Hebrew Gram- 
mar at the beginning of the book, and the English-Hebrew Index at the end, are 
valuable helps not found in the ordinary Lexicons of Hebrew.” — Prof. Henry A. 
Buitz, in Drew Theological Seminary. 


Mitchell. A Concise Statement of the Principles of Hebrew 
Grammar. Fur the Use of Teachers. By Edward Ὁ, Mitchell, D.D, . 
8vo. Paper, _ 15 cents 


fiesenius. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by Benjamin 
Davies, LL.D., from Rodiger’s Edition. Thoroughly Revised and Enlarged, 
on the Basis of the Latest Edition of Prof. E, Kautzsch, D.D., and from 
other recent Authorities, by Edward Ὁ, Mitchell, D.D. With full Subject, 
Scripture, and Hebrew Indexes. 8vo. loth, $3.00 


In preparing an edition of Davies’ Gesenius’ Grammar which should be suited 
to the wants of American teachers and students, the Editor set before himself the 
aim of combining the acknowledged excellences of Gesenius with a more lucid and 
practical arrangement. 

Availing himself of the essential improvements of Kautzsch (indeed nearly every 
page and paragraph has felt the influence of his scientific discernment in the sug- 
gestion of improved forms of statement) the Editor has also derived some hints from 
the Grammars of Ewald, Stade, Delitzsch, and others. No change has been made 
in the numbering of sections, and the notes of Dr. Davies have been preserved, so 
far as they are not superseded by the text as reconstructed. 

A new and important feature of this edition consists in the very full Indexes of 
Subjects, of Scripture, and of Hebrew words. The Hebrew index will be found 
especially valuable for the explanation of difficult forms. 

“ΤῊ 5 Grammar certainly deserves a high rank among those available fur the 
use of English-speaking scholars. It is of convenient size. It is clearly printed. 
It has the virtue, so rare in works translated from the German, of being in 
and intelligible English. It is much more full in the number of topics it treats 
than most Hebrew Grammars. Its views of the phenomena and the history of the 
language includes the latest discoveries. In its presentation of [Hebrew syntax 
this edition has greatly improved upon the older editions of Gesenius.”—TZhe Pres- 
byterian Review. 

“A feature which will be found to add much to the convenience of the student, 
is the placing of tables of the verbs, nouns, numerals, and prefix prepesitions with 
suffixes together, at the beginning of the book.” — The Watchman. F-14 


Books Published by W. F. Draper. 


Gardiner. Biblical Works by Frederic Gardiner, D.D., 
Professor in the Berkeley Divinity School: 


A Harmony of the Four Gospels in Greek, according to the Text 
- of Tischendorf; with a Collation of the Textus Receptus, and of 
the Texts of Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tregelles. 8vo. pp. lvi 
and 268. $3.00 


The distinctive features of this Harmony are, — N 

1. A critical text, viz. the text of Tischendorf’s eighth or last edition, embodying 
the latest results of textual criticism. To obtain the final portions of this edition 
the publication of this work has been ve several months. The readings of 
the fextus receptus, where they differ from Tischendorf’s text, are given in full in 
the margin; the variations being designated by a different type. The texts of 
Griesbach, Lachman, and Tregelles are carefully collated. The relative value of 
readings as. estimated by Griesbach are noted, and original authorities cited in 
important cases. 

2. All distinct quotations from the Old Testament are given in full in the 
margin, according to Tischendorf’s edition of the LX X., together with the var. 
lect. of the Alexandrian text and of the Codex Sinaiticus, and of the several other 
versions named in the title. 

3. A choice selection of parallel references has been placed in the margin, chiefly 
to point out similar language or incidents in other parts of the Gospels, or passages 
in the Old Testament, on which the language of the Gospels may te founded. 

ἐμὰ Brief notes relating to matters of Gacevay have been placed at the bottom 
of the page. 

5. Special care has been devoted to the chronological order of the Gospel 
narratives. 

6. Thecolumns are so arranged on the page as to combine the greatest clearness 
consistent with the least cost. The columns are never interwoven on the page. 

7. A synoptical table is given of the arrangement adopted by several harmonists, 
showing at a glance the general agreement on the main points of chronology, and 
the points of difference where difference occurs. This is a new feature in this 
work, and will be found very useful to the student. 


A Harmony of the Four Gospels in English, according to the 
Authorized Version ; corrected by the best Critical Editions of the 
Original. 8vo. pp. xliv and 287. $2.00 


This Harmony is a reproduction in English of the author’s “ Harmony of the 
Four Gospels” in Greek. Being intended for English readers, so much of the 
Introduction and of the notes as require a knowledge of Greek, is omitted. Other 
notes have been abridged in many cases. 


Diatessaron. The Life of Our Lord, in the Words of the Gospels. 
16mo. pp. 209. $1.00 


This work combines in one continuous narrative the events of the life of Christ 
as recorded by all the evangelists. His genealogy, conversations, discourses, 
parables, miracles, his trial, death, resurrection, and ascension, are placed in the 
order of their occurrence ; and in the foot-notes references are made to passages in 
the Old Testament relating to Christ or quoted by him. 

The life of our Lord has been of late years presented in such a multitude of 
forms, colored with the views and theories of such a multitude of minds, that it is 
hoped the present effort to present that life in the exact form of the inspired record, 
without addition or abatement, may tend to the increase of the real knowledge of 
the life of the Saviour of mankind. 

The work is specially adapted for use in the family and in Sabbath-schools and 
Bible-classes. 


WARREN F. DRAPER, Publisher, 
D-«6 ANDOVER, MASS. 


Books Published by W. F. Draper. 


Buttmann. A Grammar of the New Testament Greek. By 
Alexander Buttmann. Authorized Translation [by Prof. J. Henry 
Thayer.] With numerous additions and corrections by the Author. 8vo, 
pp. xx. and 474, loth, $2.75 


From the Translator’s Preface. 

«This Grammar is acknowledged to be the most important work which has 
appeared on N. T. Grammar since Winer’s. Its use has been hindered by the fact 
that in the original it has the form of an Appendix to the Classic Greek Grammar - 
by the Author’s father. The inconvenience arising from this peculiarity has been 
obviated in this translation by introducing in every case enough from that Gram- 
mar to render the statements easily intelligible to readers unacquainted with that 
work; at the same time, the Author’s general scheme of constantly comparing 
New Testament and Classic usage has been facilitated for every Student, by giving 
running references throughout the book to five or six of the most current gram- 
matical works, among them the Grammars of Hadley, Crosby, Donaldson, and 
Jelf. Additions and corrections in more than two hundred and fifty places have 
been furnished for this edition by the Author. ε 

“The N. T. Index has been enlarged so as to include all the passages from the 
N. T. referred to in the Grammar; and a separate Index has been added, compris- 
ing all the passages cited from the Septuagint. The other Indexes have been 
ey augmented; the cross-references have been ee ae chapter and 
verse added to many of the fragmentary quotations from the N. T.; the pagina- 
tion of the German original has been given in the margin; and at the end of the 
book a glossary of technical terms encountered more or less frequently in commen- 
taries and grammatical works has been added for the convenience of students.” 


From the New Englander. 

“One of the ablest books of its class which have been published. Indeed, it 
holds a rank next below Winer’s great work on the same subject. .... In some 
respects we think the plan adopted gives his work an incidental advantage as com- 
ΒΕ with Winer’s. It is a thoroughly scientific treatise, and one which will be 

elpful to students, both in connection with Winer’s and as discussing many 
points from a different or opposite point of view.” 


From the Presbyterian Quarterly. 

**Buttmann’s Grammar is more exhaustively philological than that of Winer, 
it has less the character of a concise commentary. It is thoroughly scholarly, 
lucid, and compact ; and admirably adapted to promote a sound knowledge of the 
Greek New Testament.” 


From the American Presbyterian Review. 


“Ἐν far the most important work on the Grammar of the New Testament Greek 
which has been produced of late years.” ᾿ 


From the Baptist Quarterly. 


“Tt is an indispensable, and, perhaps, the best, grammatical help to the critical 
student of the New Testament.’ 


From the Evangelical Lutheran Quarterly Review. 

* Most valuable addition to our helps in the study of the New Testament Greek, 
++... not at all designed to supplant the excellent work of Winer. It is intended 
only io be used along with it, or to occupy a place in the same great interest. We 
δεν no doubt, however, that many will prefer to use this instead of the Grammar 
of Winer. Α 


“ Professor Thayer has performed his task — which has been a great deal more 
than that of a mere translator — with remarkable fidelity. It is doubtless the best 
work extant on this subject, and a book which every scholarly pastor will desire tu 
possess. Its usableness is greatly enhanced by its complete set of Indexes.” —T'he 
Advance. 

“The work is thorough and exhaustive in its particular sphere.” — Reformed 
Church Messenger. ἡ ᾿ 

“ Buttmann’s Grammar is ποὺ ᾿βιδηδοᾶ to supersede Winer’s, but while that 
may, as it were, be looked upon as a grammatical commentary — so rich and full 
is it in illustration and explanation — this is rather a manual for constant refer 
ence.” — Christian Union. P15 


aery 


aoe han 








ne 
cyte 


, 
WE 





UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 


Return to desk from which borrowed. 
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 











LD 21-100m—11,’49 (B7146s16)476 








ee 


ee 


ae 


ye 
if 


a 


aS 


SAAS δ 
ΟΣ 
EN ΠΥ ΚΣ ΤῊ 
Ae ΣᾺ 

Ay 





ὩΣ 
fase 
rl 


Sette 


si 


sii 
aa 


ey: 


* 
bs 


+ : 
ἣν 


REE 


Ἶ , 
: 
Ae 


in 
is 














(te 


ii 
ia 
Ἷ RS 


Ee 





N, 


iy 
5 4 
᾿ SVE, ἐς, 
ὮΝ 
ἷ 


ner lseetertnts 


Sag eee 









































